The economic impact of an all-island economy

firefly123

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
29,068
Yeah, the UK are buying that. That is like the UK demanding EU subsidies continue until 2050 or any length of time, even though we have left the Union, because some people feel they caused a lot of the problems.

If NI & the 26 counties vote for reunification then I & most people here will genuinely wish them every success.

But the UK taxpayers continual subsidization of what will be a foreign state is a totally different matter.

No government would hand the opposition the next election by signing away between five and ten billion a year for years to come, of tax payers money to a foreign state that had left the UK.
the uk will be paying the pension liabilities of their EU staff until after 2050. thus is not unprecedented
 


rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
24,040
The context of how NI came about and was fabricated is entirely relevent. It's a British creation.
It is not relevant at all. You seem to imagine the British will be on trial for partition a century ago. They wont.

The fact is, over the next ten years Britain will subvent NI by at least 120B. Vastly more than the much decried divorce payment to the EU.
The UKs situation with the EU is more akin to NI leaving the UK than the other way round. Essentially he EU are the bigger entity and hold most of the cards. It is the reverse with reunification.

If the UK refused these 'reparations' in the form of continued subvention (which rest assured it would), what would Ireland do? refuse reunification? The same as with Brexit - it's your dream you fund it.
 

firefly123

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
29,068
Yeah, but the Brits will definitely agree to pony up for 30 years after unification. :rolleyes:

Put away the bottle and go to bed.
The UK paid many civil servant pensions in Ireland for decades after independence.
 

firefly123

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
29,068
Economically it would make sense, in the medium term. I agree with rainmaker, following long negotiations, the most any UK government would agree to re continued money, is short term. The EU would have to step up here. I would need to see a break down as to what the so called excess public servants consist of, we will surely need some to bolster our own shortcomings. Health is the big one I think, the costs down south are far too high. Anyway it's no harm to make plans for such, but until that border poll looks likely, it remains in the realm of theory. We do not know how Brexit will pan out, we think we do is all.
its all up in the air but its important to plan and to have it in public so people can educate themselves and decide rather than it suddenly loom in the horizon
 

rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
24,040
the uk will be paying the pension liabilities of their EU staff until after 2050. thus is not unprecedented
That is not in question. That is a legal obligation that would of course be met and rightly so.

But that is not the same as the UK continuing to fund NI for fifty years after reunification, which is delusional. The next ten years would be a non runner for any UK government hoping to keep the opposition in opposition.

If there were to be an attempted insistence on it (& I doubt there would, actually), then the UK would probably insist NI pay its share of the national debt.

Ireland's bluff would be called - would it refuse to take the north back?
 

Niall996

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
11,823
No. I'm simply pointing out the demand by some that UK taxpayers keep paying many billions in taxes into NI services while they pay their taxes to the Republic is a non starter.

Telling the UK public, essentially, ' and youse have to because yer a shower of b***ds & your ancestors were worse' is even more of a non starter.
No. Britain have to because Britain established a model that requires by it's very construction huge ongoing and endless investment to keep going. For another administration to take over, rebalance, redevelop and restore to something resembling normality, there simply has to be the required financial transfer to make that possible. There is no other option. There is simply no other means. The UK has to start budgetting with that future scenario in mind. You don't seem to get it. The UK is already committed to this spend. Forever. It's Britain who needs to find a negotiated way out of it's financial NI milllstone. The only other option would be for Britain to reject a border poll, refuse to implement it and decide to continue to pay billions forever into a black endless pit and face an inevitable return to war.
 

Niall996

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
11,823
That is not in question. That is a legal obligation that would of course be met and rightly so.

But that is not the same as the UK continuing to fund NI for fifty years after reunification, which is delusional. The next ten years would be a non runner for any UK government hoping to keep the opposition in opposition.

If there were to be an attempted insistence on it (& I doubt there would, actually), then the UK would probably insist NI pay its share of the national debt.

Ireland's bluff would be called - would it refuse to take the north back?
And pick up the full tab just like that? Yes. See post #47
 

rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
24,040
No. You have to because you established a model that requires by it's very construction huge ongoing and endless investment to keep going.
No we don't. The UK will not be on trial for partition & that is a strange way to view it.

For another administration to take over, rebalance, redevelop and restore to something resembling normality,
Again no. If you choose reunification, and they also opt for reunification, then it is down to you to make it work.

It's Britain who needs to find a negotiated way out of it's financial NI milllstone.
No it hasn't. NI reuniting with the Republic and becoming a part of a foreign state will end our obligation to take care of it. It will be the Republics responsibility from then on.

I'm afraid Republicans are going to need to learn to take responsibility to make this a reality.
 

Angler

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
1,600
No. I'm simply pointing out the demand by some that UK taxpayers keep paying many billions in taxes into NI services while they pay their taxes to the Republic is a non starter.

Telling the UK public, essentially, ' and youse have to because yer a shower of b***ds & your ancestors were worse' is even more of a non starter.
The UK Government would have an interest in maintaining stability in a UI,e.g, any substantial exodus of Loyalists to Britain could be potentially problematic in the light of Scottish separatism, aside even from the future direction of a UI itself.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
The UK Government would have an interest in maintaining stability in a UI,e.g, any substantial exodus of Loyalists to Britain could be potentially problematic in the light of Scottish separatism, aside even from the future direction of a UI itself.
History suggests the UK would have an interest in fostering instability. They always leave a trail of destruction behind them.
 

Niall996

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
11,823
No we don't. The UK will not be on trial for partition & that is a strange way to view it.



Again no. If you choose reunification, and they also opt for reunification, then it is down to you to make it work.



No it hasn't. NI reuniting with the Republic and becoming a part of a foreign state will end our obligation to take care of it. It will be the Republics responsibility from then on.

I'm afraid Republicans are going to need to learn to take responsibility to make this a reality.
I think you're mixing up your anti Irish sentment with logic and facts. This is not about Republicans. If Britain want to offload NI (which it does), and if the majority in NI want to join a UI (which they will), then there will have to be a negotiated financial transference policy in order for the ROI to absorb the wishes of the people of Britain and NI. A nation cannot just foist a piece of debt ridden loss making territory on another and do a runner. That is never going to happen. The only question is, do Britain want to pay forever and ever or for just another ten/twenty years worth.
 

firefly123

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
29,068
That is not in question. That is a legal obligation that would of course be met and rightly so.

But that is not the same as the UK continuing to fund NI for fifty years after reunification, which is delusional. The next ten years would be a non runner for any UK government hoping to keep the opposition in opposition.

If there were to be an attempted insistence on it (& I doubt there would, actually), then the UK would probably insist NI pay its share of the national debt.

Ireland's bluff would be called - would it refuse to take the north back?
no I agree. the idea that Britain pay for 50 years is absurd but there would have to be a transition period even if only for optics. The EU would also pony up heaps as this would be a historical flagship event.
 
Last edited:

Volatire

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
14,550
All Island economy is hogwash. Dublin does not need competition from Belfast. Keep it in the UK.

As the NI economy flounders, build the wall.

Keep nordies out.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

no I agree. the idea that Britain pay for 50 years is absurd but there would have to be a transition period even if only for optics. The EU would also pint up heaps as this would be a historical flagship event.
So if NI leaves the UK, the UK should continue to make payments to NI for a period...........and if the UK leaves the EU, the UK should continue to make payments to the EU for a period. Sounds like a very bad deal for the UK, downright unreasonable, I would say.
 

rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
24,040
The UK Government would have an interest in maintaining stability in a UI,e.g, any substantial exodus of Loyalists to Britain could be potentially problematic in the light of Scottish separatism, aside even from the future direction of a UI itself.
I don't wish to sound selfish, but any instability would not be our problem. A mass exodus of unionists to the UK would easily be absorbed in a nation of around seventy million people.

I personally doubt any exodus would be that substantial, & continued subvention would not really prevent it anyway.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
34,254
Three or four years on a sliding reduction, five tops. No UK government is selling continued subvention for a decade or more and staying in government - the opposition of the day would crucify them.
Subvention no but they would be paying for pensions for those who were after all working for the British Civil Service.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
I don't wish to sound selfish, but any instability would not be our problem. A mass exodus of unionists to the UK would easily be absorbed in a nation of around seventy million people.

I personally doubt any exodus would be that substantial, & continued subvention would not really prevent it anyway.
Indeed a mass exodus of unionists would improve stability in the long term.
 

rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
24,040
I think you're mixing up your anti Irish sentment with logic and facts.
Petulance. I am not anti Irish, and no fair minded reader familiar with my posting would say that.

If Britain want to offload NI (which it does),
Strawman. It would not be a case of the UK 'offloading NI' - it would be a case of the people of Northern Ireland democratically deciding they were offloading the UK, and the democratic choice of the Republic to take them on.

foist a piece of debt ridden loss making territory on another and do a runner.
It's Ireland's choice - Britain is not 'foisting' anything on anyone. The people of Britain will (obviously & rightly) have absolutely no say in that decision. The wishes of Britain will not be voted on.

Your justifications do not stack up.
 

Roll_On

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
17,544
Three or four years on a sliding reduction, five tops. No UK government is selling continued subvention for a decade or more and staying in government - the opposition of the day would crucify them.
For the UK exchequer it's such a small amount of money, it'll hardly be talked about at all.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top