President of Ireland or President of the Republic of Ireland?

On that point, the fact that CH Haughey, as President of the European Council in 1990, did everything he could to facilitate the reunification of Germany, over the strong objections of Thatcher, was key to the success of the project. Chancellor Kohl acknowledged as much in his speech to the Dáil a few years later. Maybe a European Statesman (or woman) or Haughey's calibre is what's needed now.
 
So will the Blue Shirts attend the Prayers for Partition Nordie-knees-up?
I don't think they should, mainly because it would damage them electorally.

From a personal perspective I'm happy enough to leave the god-botherers of all hews up there where they belong. When they stop with all the marching and praying and tribalism they can be part of our country. It's a bit like taking off your manure covered boots before you come inside.
 
My gosh Wolfie that is an explanation of the words. Putting it more succinctly: "NI has debts for sure but since it never pays its debts we can forget about them".
But even that bizarre reasoning is flawed. By that reasoning we haven't paid our debts for many years. But we have. It's just that we borrow more to pay off old debt and finance the deficit. On a look through NI is doing the exact same thing.
I could give Prof Doyle the benefit of the doubt and say that he just doesn't understand these things. Unfortunately, taken with other stark non sequiturs and his retweets it his hard to escape the suspicion that the good Prof is simply peddling a SF agenda.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
But even that bizarre reasoning is flawed.
Click to expand...

I never said it wasn't bizarre reasoning, I was just pointing out what I understood Prof Doyle to be saying.

As bizarre as it is, there is actually some method within the madness.

You see the debt is UK debt, not NI debt. The £2.4bn liability attributable to NI is just as what the Prof says it is, an accounting exercise.

Here is the bit you are not catching onto - in the event of UI, the £2.4bn liability (attributable to NI via the accounting exercise) does not follow NI onto Irish debt liability, it stays where it belongs - in the UK, because it is UK debt not Irish debt.
So you can knock £2.4bn off the £9bn subvention.
 
Would you lend to NI?. the place that may or may not have a government depending on the day of the week. Is a 32 country Ireland going to be handed NI's proportionate part of the UK national debt?, I doubt it. If that is the case then lets forget about the UK national debt, and focus on managing the annual deficit NI will bring.
 
WolfeTone said:
Will it be any greater than the deficit spends for Connacht and the other three Ulster counties already in our jurisdiction?
Click to expand...
I guess we'll be hoping to spread the free state gravy making machine into the 6...... For starters need to slash public sector there, seems to be out of kilter for the population. Anyway, never mind the quality (cost), feel the width (vision)., we paid for the banks through gritted teeth, we'll do the same for Norn Iron - it's the tyranny of the will of the people innit.......
 
@Betsy Og @WolfeTone
RoI debt/GNI ratio is 109%.
NI GNI is €60bn
If we get NI without any debt we should therefore be able to borrow another c.€70bn day 1 and that is without building in the wonderful UI economic dividend.
Let's have a UI party. Share that out between the Nordies and it is about 40 grand each. Is this the way to unionist hearts and minds? Oh I hear them moaning that the taigs will get more coz they have bigger families.
This is a Prof we are talking about. It's okay for Wolfie et al to say "hey those are UK pensions, those are UK debts built up in establishing NI's infrastructure and indeed in social transfers from the mainland" but we expect people who flout titles of Prof (even if of makey uppey disciplines) to talk sense.
The ESRI has rubbished the good Prof's findings and I go with them any day.
 
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade said:
If we get NI without any debt we should therefore be able to borrow another c.€70bn day 1
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Who mentioned getting NI 'without any debt'?

We were talking about how the 9bn subvention was calculated. It is used by the partitionists to scare off thoughts of a UI.
The Prof is just dismantling project fear which you are now clearly trying to side-step by making new assumptions that nobody has offered rather than acknowledge the good Profs findings.

As I have said before, all these reports are basically meaningless until the entire package, via a negotiation, is trashed out.

But to entertain your assumption for a moment let me offer a more probable scenario. In return for NI GNI of €60bn, we will accept UK liabilities to the tune of €60bn also. Fair deal?

What would that mean in reality? I have heard somewhere that the RoI economy is three times that of NI, using your figures above it puts GNI in RoI at €180bn. Sounds reasonable?
That would mean our Debt at 109% is €196bn or so.

But what would happen if we unite the RoI and NI figures. Our total GNI would rise to €240bn and our debt (including the fair-deal €60bn trade) would be €256bn.

That would make the overall United Ireland debt/GNI ratio at 106.6%

My goodness, not only are we jumping up the charts in the economy size rankings but we have also started to reducing the debt ratio of the nation. And all this before we benefit from the UI economic dividend too.

You see Duke, it doesn't matter what is thrown out there in reports and conclusions. There is always somebody on the other side of those conclusions to argue otherwise.
 
WolfeTone said:
What are you talking about? Who mentioned getting NI 'without any debt'?
Click to expand...
Are you paying attention at all? The Prof argues that the service of the National Debt is merely an accounting illusion and he therefore says it should be lopped off any subvention in the context of UI. That's where he got his 2-3bn figure from, didn't you follow?
You only lop the subvention off if the debt doesn't travel. For avoidance of doubt he reminds us of precedent:
Prof Doyle said:
The Republic was allowed to exit the UK to form the Irish Free State in the 1920s debt free.
Click to expand...
I repeat that I agree with you that the economic dimension can be overplayed, witness the reunification of the Fatherland. If unionists voted for a UI the US/UK/EU would be falling over themselves to make it work and the financials will not be a problem.
But this current rabbit hole that I have dug arises from comments such as this
Wolfie said:
that is a very good considered article. Refreshing from the standard "we can't afford it!" nonsense that is most ofted peddled in Irish media.
Click to expand...
The report (as opposed to the article) is pure SF/IRA propaganda fodder. I presume Fierce Doherty has it pinned to his wall beside a copy of the Proclamation. I see this DCU chair in Conflict Resolution was sponsored by none other than Hilary Clinton. I hope that none of my taxpayer money is propping it up.
 
Last edited:
@Duke of Marmalade I am not advocating the report, nor dismissing it. My point is as I have stated before

WolfeTone said:
It matters not a jot.
Click to expand...

WolfeTone said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why do I think this?

Because until the time comes to negotiate what a UI will look like we will never know. Take 4 scenarios;

1) The UK cedes NI GNI economy of €60bn debt free. There is precedent. Albeit I think it is unlikely. In such a scenario the Prof is absolutely spot on to lop off the 2-3bn of the subvention.

2) The UK says "we are off, delighted to get shot of the place....don't come running to us for favours and handouts, it's your baby now!....buhahaha!!" In which case the Prof has got it completely wrong and you have correctly exposed the fundamental flaw in his thinking. Also unlikely in my opinion.

3) The UK agrees, recognising it is in her interest that the unification of Ireland works as smoothly as possible and in consideration of our intractable social and culture ties and....blah, blah, blah (political speel), that for the first 3yrs of unification UK will honour liabilities arising out of unification equal to the sum of the current subvention pa. It further agrees that this amount will begin to reduce over the subsequent decade following reunification. The debt being gradually subsumed into the balance sheet of the Irish economy. The EU also agrees that it will provide a significant fund over this period for the purposes of supporting social, cultural integration and....blah, blah, blah (political speel). The USA commits to Ireland....blah, blah, blah (political speel)....

4) No of the above, instead the Russians invade Ukraine and WW3 breaks out.
 
WolfeTone said:
@Duke of Marmalade

1) The UK cedes NI GNI economy of €60bn debt free. There is precedent. Albeit I think it is unlikely. In such a scenario the Prof is absolutely spot on to lop off the 2-3bn of the subvention.
Click to expand...
The Prof was totally wrong in his argument that NI has not "contributed to" the UK National Debt. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. For an academic paper, which I suspect my taxes partly subsidised, to be so badly wrong on this and other facts is not acceptable.
Of course in the unlikely (according to you and me) event that the UK waives this obligation then of course he is right to lop it off. But he actually did lop it off in his headline press release - either for sensation grabbing purposes or from a personal political agenda or both.
In any case I am getting weary of stating the obvious of how flawed the Prof's report was and since we are actually on the same page as regards the relevance of economics to the UI debate, I think we should park it at that.
 
As to the ad hominem arguments


Duke of Marmalade said:
So I googled this Prof Doyle. It turns out he is Professor of Conflict Resolution
Click to expand...
Duke of Marmalade said:
the good Prof is simply peddling a SF agenda.
Click to expand...
Duke of Marmalade said:
I see this DCU chair in Conflict Resolution was sponsored by none other than Hilary Clinton.
Click to expand...

All I will say is that you have actually missed the strongest one of all, you would love it, but I will let you to find it yourself.

The two important substantive points are

1. Pensions, who will pay the pensions of NI public servants, retired PSNI sergeants, and maths teachers gone to grass. His suggestion is that the UK govt will as it was to the UK govt they payed Tax and NI during their working lives. Not an unreasonable view.

2 Debt, the regularly quoted figure of £9bn UK govt subvention to NI annually includes £2.4bn debt servicing costs. This is the share of UK debt service costs attributed to NI. This will obviously disappear, a UI will not be paying interest on UK govt debt.

A UI may have to take on part of the capital balance of UK public debt, if that were to happen there would of course be a financing cost involved, although as the Irish govt can currently raise money at negative rates that might even reduce the annual costs.


Here is a link to a response by Alan Barrett of the ERSI to Doyle's article.
 
Last edited:
I’m intrigued by Prof Doyle’s other secret, please tell me.
NI would be leaving the UK. You seem to be arguing that all NI liabilities for e.g. unfunded pensions and national debt spent on infrastructure etc. should then fall to the rest of the UK and NI should be spared its share. Sorry but that is just nonsense but yes it is what Prof Doyle is saying. Of course NI would be entitled to its share of any funding from insurance stamps. Note that the UK is leaving the EU but accepts that it should be liable for its share of unfunded pensions. Bizarrely the Prof argues that this implies the exact opposite in the case of NI leaving the UK.
Alan Barrett clearly disagrees but has gone easy on his academic peer.
On the point about taking on the share of public debt, that would include the associated interest payments. These are not negative, they are 2.4bn p.a. The fact that we can currently borrow at negative interest rates is irrelevant. Let me explain. Say you had a deposit earning 2.4% for the next 10 years. Would you accept your money back knowing you can only invest it at negative interest? Or to explain still further. Ireland is currently paying 1.5% p.a. on average on its national debt. By your reasoning they should replace that immediately at negative rates.
 
Last edited:
WolfeTone said:
Yes. Ditto "how will we pay for the health service" agenda.

Parked.
Click to expand...
And will their vast hoards of State Employees have their pay raised to Irish levels?
Will their rates of Welfare also be raised to our levels?
Stick that in the mix and see what it'll cost.
 
Purple said:
And will their vast hoards of State Employees have their pay raised to Irish levels?
Will their rates of Welfare also be raised to our levels?
Stick that in the mix and see what it'll cost.
Click to expand...

This is all part of the mix for sure. But I dont subscribe to the view that raising incomes of working people, including public servants, is necessarily a bad thing.

Taking public service numbers for a start. I don't have the figures to hand but I understand RoI workforce of 2m people is roughly 16% (320,000) public servants.
NI workforce of 700,000 is roughly 30% public servants, or 210,000.
At a very basic calculating level then a UI workforce would inherent a workforce of 2.7m with 530,000 public servants, or 19.2%.

Of course there will be overlap, there will be duplication there will be mismanagement at times. But following unification, if there is planning and financial support, alot of these issues will be resolved over the following decade or so.
 
The following is a breakdown of NI's public service, the % is the per capital ratio compared to RoI.
Civil service 26k 175%
Health 68k 160%
Education 66k 168%
Local Government 12k 111%
Justice and defence 11k 125%

The biggies are health and education. Given the level of moaning about the HSE maybe they get value for the NHS. On the other hand they say the South are better educated so that looks like bad value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register