President of Ireland or President of the Republic of Ireland?
- Thread starter Dave Vanian
- Start date
These "copy and paste" so-called journalists are so poor I am surprised they are paid at all.
Yea, but it was just him reading the DCU paper, though it was well written.
I do agree that the subvention is a red herring, the real cost will be the wave of public sector bodies, healthcare systems and services that won't be properly integrated. It'll make the HSE look good, okay, maybe that's an exaggeration; nothing could make the HSE look good.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,596
A bad article. The bit that I am not sure of is the share of National Debt. Nearly all modern societies have public capital and infrastructure assets funded by national debt. Until relatively recently NI had a motorway infrastructure that put us to shame. I don't get the bit that says that NI has not availed of UK national debt for decades. What, has there been no public capital spend in NI? Though it is a very interesting precedent that the Free State was given a clean slate.Article on the costs/economic implications of a United Ireland
Northern Ireland’s £9.4bn subvention and the cost of Irish unity
The North was one of nine UK regions to run a fiscal deficit in 2019www.irishtimes.com
It makes the point that the standstill costs would be €2-3bn a year, but of course there would not be a standstill, the evolving economic situation would be key.
Last edited:
Government spending as a proportion of the national economy was much smaller in the 1920's. Public Healthcare and Social Welfare hardly existed back then. It's a different story now.
Baby boomer
Registered User
- Messages
- 735
I think the clean slate was a pragmatic solution. If you allocate the debt, then you have to allocate the assets in a similar proportion. I'm sure the UK didn't fancy handing over a share of its nice London based assets to the Free State. Nor would it do likewise for any future Northern Ireland.
But one issue we would need to come to terms with is the different spending levels North and South. Ireland pays a lot more generous social welfare benefits, and public service pay than the UK does. Hard to imagine either side of the political divide in Northern Ireland being happy with that! The clamour for "equality" "fairness" and all the rest would be hard to ignore and impossible to resist.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,596
Actually on reflection that report is seriously in error on at least two fronts.
For an academic this displays a breathtaking ignorance of the national finances. The National Debt arises from fiscal deficits, state expenditure exceeding state revenue. This has always been the case in NI and in fact NI should have a disproportionate share of the UK's National Debt. One might question whether its populace were willing contributors to for example its war effort. A majority certainly were so the most that could be argued for here is a discount for nationalist dissaproval. On the other hand the huge deficits arising from the Troubles should largely be debited to the nationalist side - I'd say it evens out.
I hope this piece of nonsense was trashed when it had its academic outing. It seems that it had for its rather eye watering conclusions have not really grabbed even the SF/IRA propaganda machine.
The Brexit comparison actually points in the other direction. The UK left the EU and has agreed to carry its accrued pension liabilities with it. NI would be leaving the UK and should by this precedent bring its pension liabilities with it. Pensions are deferred remuneration. In the case of NI public servants they represent deferred remuneration for service done to NI and should therefore be a liability of NI.Doyle of DCU said:
Doyle of DCU said:
For an academic this displays a breathtaking ignorance of the national finances. The National Debt arises from fiscal deficits, state expenditure exceeding state revenue. This has always been the case in NI and in fact NI should have a disproportionate share of the UK's National Debt. One might question whether its populace were willing contributors to for example its war effort. A majority certainly were so the most that could be argued for here is a discount for nationalist dissaproval. On the other hand the huge deficits arising from the Troubles should largely be debited to the nationalist side - I'd say it evens out.
I hope this piece of nonsense was trashed when it had its academic outing. It seems that it had for its rather eye watering conclusions have not really grabbed even the SF/IRA propaganda machine.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,596
That was my initial reaction. I hope I have persuaded you that the report itself was really very bad.
On the contrary.
What you have shown, in part, is the other side of the debate.
In the event of a Yes, North and South, all of the above and more will form the basis of negotiation in preparation for a UI.
Critically, in the event of their being a Yes vote, it will be in everyone's interest to make it work as smoothly as possible.
I don't think it would be in Britains interest to lumber New Ireland with unpayable debt?
Why have maurandering gangs of unemployed youth ripe for paramilitary pickings when with some investment and debt write downs you could offer them a future, an education, and perhaps banish the spectre of paramilitaries forever?
The UK can push the EU for support also. Our friends in America will want to rally behind the UI also.
A UI would could potentially be the greatest economic expansion this tiny island has ever seen.
We should go for it!
@WolfeTone, I don't think even you are that blindly optimistic about what a united Ireland look like.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,596
You have misinterpreted me. I am not arguing that financial considerations are a serious impediment to a UI. I agree with the reasons you give, that with the US and the UK and the EU behind such a move, the relatively trivial amounts involved will be addressed.
I am saying that the report was seriously flawed on at least two counts.
(1) They argued that following Brexit precedent NI should not be liable for accrued pensions. That is exactly the opposite. The UK are liable for past EU pensions accrued on their behalf.
(2) They argued that NI has not contributed to the UK National Debt for decades. But even by his own calculations NI has been sub-vented by €3bn p.a. Maybe he believes in the magic money tree but serious economists have no difficulty in understanding that that is an accrual of the National Debt.
Perhaps not, but it's good to give some balance against those who are blindly and perpetually pessimistic.
Perhaps it is, I won't disagree. As will the numerous other thoughts, views and studies will be considered flawed in the discourse of what a UI would/should look like.
I'm guessing there are as many reports arguing the benefits of Brexit as there are the deficiencies of Brexit?
For a UI it will be the same.
In my personal opinion, assuming a Yes vote achieved through exclusively peaceful and democratic means, then the positives of a UI will far outweigh negatives.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,596
You are slippery. "Whatabout" (your only club it seems) the numerous other thoughts, views and studies that will be considered flawed.
This is not a matter of opinion. The UK is inheriting its pension liabilities when it leaves the EU. The equivalent would be that NI would inherit its pension liabilities when it leaves the UK. I am not expressing a view as to whether such an equivalence is relevant. I am pointing out that John Doyle in an academic paper draws the exact opposite equivalence. Rather reminiscent of Brian Lucey's deposit selling moment.
Even more stark is his assertion that NI has not contributed to the UK National Debt for decades when even he can only talk down that contribution to €3bn per annum.
@Duke of Marmalade if you say the report is fundamentally flawed on two counts I will take your word for it.
It matters not a jot. Nothing slippery about it.
No matter who produces what report and offers whatever conclusions there will be someone on the other side of that conclusion to argue it down, based on fact or based on their own perspective.
It's why headlines of "who will pay for the health service" are nothing but drivvel propagated by partitionists to try maintain the status quo and perpetuate the deep divisions in NI.
It matters not a jot. Nothing slippery about it.
No matter who produces what report and offers whatever conclusions there will be someone on the other side of that conclusion to argue it down, based on fact or based on their own perspective.
It's why headlines of "who will pay for the health service" are nothing but drivvel propagated by partitionists to try maintain the status quo and perpetuate the deep divisions in NI.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,596
I decided not to let this one go. Professor Doyle's assertion that the NI has not contributed to the UK national debt for decades is really bewildering. What can he mean? All I can think of is that he is referring to the physical process of issuing debt. This in the UK is done by the Bank of England/Treasury so does he mean that no bond sales have been done in Belfast for decades? I trust that even you, my dear Wolfie, can see that this is nonsense.
So I googled this Prof Doyle. It turns out he is Professor of Conflict Resolution
Now that is even more makey uppey than Envoy for Freedom of Expression. Also of interest is the following retweet in recent days:I have learnt from The Donald to judge a man by his retweets.Retweet of Niall O'Doherty said:
Prof Doyle should have included the following disclaimers in his report.
Although I am a Prof I know nuffin about economics or finance.
Although I do conflict resolution I do not believe the Irish conflict is resolved whilst we have partition.
He seems to be to conflict resolution what Lorcan Sirr is to Housing.
Does he mean it is a "net" drain on the UK? - by all accounts it is. Or should there be some NI budgetary element of paying cash to help manage the UK national debt - but it never happens. It was interesting to read Buckland about the formation of NI - from the get go it was determined to leech the UK treasury. Sure fair enough, wouldn't you, but it just goes to show it was a basket case from start to finish.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,596
This is what he said
It is the bit that I have highlighted in bold that really defies comprehension. What do the words mean? Does "contributed to" mean pay over hard cash? Does it mean "increased"? The former is true but meaningless. The latter is clearly untrue as Prof Doyle's own assertion that NI is living at €3bn p.a. beyond its means, and that is after he has ditched a lot of the true subvention on the grounds that it is accounting waffle. Where does he think the €3bn comes from?Prof Doyle said:
I'm not sure why you are asking me as I thought I was clear in ceding that if you had found fundamental flaws in his report that I would accept that?
The article was well written but the report is a near irrelevance to me. As will be the plethora of any number of reports that will emerge if the prospect of a UI really gets going. That is not to dismiss every and all reports rather to say, as I have said before, there will always be someone on the other side of the conclusions of any report that is published.
This is how I understand what he means.
The UK national debt stands at £xxxbn. Interest is payable on that debt. The debt liability is the amount of interest due on the debt.
The NI portion due on the interest is calculated at £2.4bn pa.
But seeing as NI runs a deficit each year of some £3bn, NI never actually contributes it share of the UK's debt liability. So regarding the £9bn subvention, which includes the debt liability figure of £2.4bn, then you can take that £2.4bn away because NI never pays it anyway.