President of Ireland or President of the Republic of Ireland?

[cremeegg]

I’m intrigued by Prof Doyle’s other secret, please tell me.

Well I am sure it is no secret, but I imagine you will be delighted to meet his little sister

Dawn Doyle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and before you fall off your stool she has nothing to do with the substance of the arguments.

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.

While it would all be subject to a political negotiation I would imagine that the political representatives of retired PSNI sergeants will be demanding that their pensions be guaranteed by the UK government. Unless of course Brexit gets really bad.

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.

This is weak Duke, and I suspect you know it. All governments are continually refinancing their debt.

The UK public debt is a liability of the UK government, in the event of NI joining a UI a portion of that debt might well be taken on by the Irish Government. The financing costs of such a debt by the Irish government would be wholly unconnected to the existing financing costs of UK debt. If such a thing were to happen today, the financing costs of this debt taken over by the Irish government would possibly be negative. Who knows what rates will prevail at some unspecified point in the future.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

This is weak Duke, and I suspect you know it. All governments are continually refinancing their debt.

No! No! No! I know what I am talking about. The National Debt consists mainly of bonds, that is for example a commitment to pay 1bn in 2040 and 4% p.a. until then. UI would inherit its share of that. Yes of course when the bond matures it can be refinanced at then interest rates. Currently the coupon payments on NI share of National Debt is £2.4bn per annum. All else equal UI would inherit that. Of course as the bonds mature the interest rate will come into line with then current interest rates. So I will agree that the initial interest cost would be £2.4bn p.a. but at current interest rates this will slowly decline (presuming interest rates don't go up) as the debt matures and gets rolled over. But no escaping that the initial cost is £2.4bn p.a.

The point is that refinancing debt means paying off debt as it matures with new debt, but you have to wait till it matures. That is why the current interest on RoI debt is 1.5% even though it’s current borrowing costs are negative. It is a reflection of historic borrowing rates. Yes it is falling as it matures and is refinanced.

I note that Prof Doyle needs another disclaimer, besides that he knows nuffin about economics and finance; he should also disclose that his sister (and it seems himself) is a SF/IRA propagandist. Really it is of concern that SF/IRA are infiltrating our academia in this way.

 

[WolfeTone]

@Duke of Marmalade @cremeegg you are dangerously close to entering into negotiations for a situation that is written in the stars but far from reality on the ground.

That said, the pros and cons of a UI need to be trashed out. But a UI is not a formula of interest rates, liabilities, accounting and finances.

It is a consequence of human emotion, passion, identity and sovereignty.
Balance sheets are a distant second, albeit a useful tool in short-sighted persuasion.

So I haven't been around for 400yrs plus, but one thing I have picked up on is the seemingly never ending division on religious grounds (perpetuated by violence on both sides).

There is one common denominator throughout this period. I define it simply as the interests of Ireland being a distant second to the interests of Britain under the realm.
Brexit the latest example.

I propose a solution. A United Ireland with constitutional guarantees of sovereignty and subservience for those who identify as British to their Crown, within a Republic that is focused on the future and providing opportunity and hope to all people of all creeds, colours, races etc.

As Ian Paisley Snr said to Martin McGuinness, "we don't need London to govern us, we can govern ourselves."

Who will be the first Unionist leader to cross the rubicon, with all the confidence in his/her identity, and genuinely embrace the reality of All Ireland?

 

[cremeegg]

I note that Prof Doyle needs another disclaimer, besides that he knows nuffin about economics and finance; he should also disclose that his sister (and it seems himself) is a SF/IRA propagandist. Really it is of concern that SF/IRA are infiltrating our academia in this way.

His sister has been General Secetary of SF for the last 12 years. So much for the hard men from the north pulling the strings in the background.

The point is that refinancing debt means paying off debt as it matures with new debt, but you have to wait till it matures. That is why the current interest on RoI debt is 1.5% even though it’s current borrowing costs are negative. It is a reflection of historic borrowing rates. Yes it is falling as it matures and is refinanced.

The idea that outstanding debt obligations would be divvied up, one for me one for you, is a little naive. The existing bonds are liabilities of the UK government. If a portion of the liability were to be transferred to a UI it would have to be refinanced.

If you got divorced you could not tell the bank, ' although only my name has been on the mortgage up to now we are divorcing and we have decided to split up the mortgage, I owe X amount and the Duchess owes Y amount. You would continue to owe the entire amount to the bank unless the Duchess took out a loan in her name and paid off a portion. That would be refinanced at prevailing rates.

That said, the pros and cons of a UI need to be trashed out. But a UI is not a formula of interest rates, liabilities, accounting and finances.

People don't get divorced for financial reasons, but they often run into trouble if they don't sort the finances.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

The idea that outstanding debt obligations would be divvied up, one for me one for you, is a little naive. The existing bonds are liabilities of the UK government.

Please! this is just silliness. You might as well argue that the existing public service were recruited by Her Majesty’s government and therefore it is contractually bound to continue paying their salaries. Prof Doyle does not go quite this far but he does say they have to continue paying their pensions. Cue congratulatory texts from big sis‘ and Grisly.

If a portion of the liability were to be transferred to a UI it would have to be refinanced.

If you got divorced you could not tell the bank, ' although only my name has been on the mortgage up to now we are divorcing and we have decided to split up the mortgage, I owe X amount and the Duchess owes Y amount. You would continue to owe the entire amount to the bank unless the Duchess took out a loan in her name and paid off a portion. That would be refinanced at prevailing rates.

And I thought Prof Doyle was out of his depth. I took out a Fixed Rate mortgage. The Duchess is in for a big surprise if she thinks she can refinance this and that this means replacing the same loan amount at today’s lower interest rates.
Let me draw diagrams. A typical element of the UK National Debt is the gilt “UK Treasury 2034 4.5%”. That is currently yielding 1.29% p.a. to give a price of 138%. So yes the UK can currently raise 2034 borrowings at 1.29% p.a. but it would involve a 38% penalty to get out of past obligations.

The fact is that NI’s current share of past accrued debt costs 2.4bn p.a. and no amount of refinancing at today’s interest rates can change that liability.

Please do not continue to display Prof Doyle’s level of ignorance in these matters.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

So I haven't been around for 400yrs plus, but one thing I have picked up on is the seemingly never ending division on religious grounds (perpetuated by violence on both sides)

Well you were around in 1798, banging on about uniting Irishmen, Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter. I hope you realise how much your honeyed words have contributed to that violence.

 

[Baby boomer]

When the USSR was dissolved, Russia "inherited" the entire national debt, plus its international assets such as embassies, its military assets including (most of) its nuclear deterrent and its permanent seat at the UN security council.

If the UK, wants to share those sovereign assets with a UI, well, we can negotiate. But I don't think it'll happen. The default position is that the national debt stays with the UK. Interestingly, this came up during the Scottish IndyRef debate. At the time, Scotland's pro-independence side wanted to keep the Pound (yeah, I know...me neither) and Westminster made it clear that the price for that would be an independent Scotland taking on a share of the debt. They could have the Pound and the debt, or neither. Obviously in a UI, it'd be neither.

As for pensions, public servants in NI would be changing employer. This is a perfectly normal event and it is perfectly normal for the old employer (UK) to be liable for pensionable service in its employment with the new employer (UI) taking on responsibility for subsequent pensionable service.

And state pensions - consider a UK resident who leaves the UK to go live in a third country. They will get a UK pension based on their National Insurance record while a UK resident. They will, depending on age, etc, qualify for a pension based on their social security record in the third country. There is no question of the third country taking on responsibility for their UK state pension unless there is a specific international agreement to this effect.

So in any UI, we shouldn't expect to take on UK national debt or responsibility for accrued state or public service pensions.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

When the USSR was dissolved, Russia "inherited" the entire national debt, plus its international assets such as embassies, its military assets including (most of) its nuclear deterrent and its permanent seat at the UN security council.

If the UK, wants to share those sovereign assets with a UI, well, we can negotiate. But I don't think it'll happen. The default position is that the national debt stays with the UK. Interestingly, this came up during the Scottish IndyRef debate. At the time, Scotland's pro-independence side wanted to keep the Pound (yeah, I know...me neither) and Westminster made it clear that the price for that would be an independent Scotland taking on a share of the debt. They could have the Pound and the debt, or neither. Obviously in a UI, it'd be neither.

As for pensions, public servants in NI would be changing employer. This is a perfectly normal event and it is perfectly normal for the old employer (UK) to be liable for pensionable service in its employment with the new employer (UI) taking on responsibility for subsequent pensionable service.

And state pensions - consider a UK resident who leaves the UK to go live in a third country. They will get a UK pension based on their National Insurance record while a UK resident. They will, depending on age, etc, qualify for a pension based on their social security record in the third country. There is no question of the third country taking on responsibility for their UK unless there is a specific international agreement to this effect.

So in any UI, we shouldn't expect to take on UK national debt or responsibility for accrued state or public service pensions.

I will attempt to explain how your points are fundamentally flawed. This is a surprise to me as your posts are usually very well informed. This post will address the pension issue, a later one will address the more complicated issue of National Debt.
Pensions are deferred remuneration. When someone moves jobs there is clearly no question of the new employer taking on the pension responsibilities of the older employer, the services were not enjoyed by the new employer.
If NI leaves the UK and joins a UI then who is responsible for those pensions? Who enjoyed the services for which those pensions are deferred remuneration? In the broadest sense it was the people of NI themselves who enjoyed the services. But even in the narrow legal sense it will have been entities like the Housing Executive which will be NI legal entities. It would be entirely similar to one group of companies transferring a subsidiary to another group.
I am absolutely gobsmacked that Prof Doyle does not see this (or indeed your good self) but to compound his ignorance his argument that the UK taking over the pensions of its EU reps supports his case is mind boggling.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

The default position is that the national debt stays with the UK.

In the contractual paperwork of course the debt stays with the UK. It would be impossibly messy to ask bondholders to split their bonds into Tartan Bonds (as they were called in Indyref) and HM Bonds. But even the Indies recognised that Scotland would have to bear its fair share of the National Debt by way of a legacy debt from independent Scotland to the UK which would wither with time (lots of debate about what the fair share would be e.g. the role of Scotland's oil revenues).

Interestingly, this came up during the Scottish IndyRef debate. At the time, Scotland's pro-independence side wanted to keep the Pound (yeah, I know...me neither) and Westminster made it clear that the price for that would be an independent Scotland taking on a share of the debt. They could have the Pound and the debt, or neither. Obviously in a UI, it'd be neither.

Sorry, but a total misunderstanding (giving you the benefit of the doubt.) of what this debate was all about. The Indies wanted to be able to borrow in sterling post independence. (I hope you understand that this is quite different from borrowing in a currency pegged to the pound as happened with the Irish Free State.) It is a bit like the issue over Eurobonds. The UK Treasury said they would not allow this just as Germany were against Eurobonds. The Indies retorted by saying you can stuff your National Debt then. It was purely an outrageous negotiating position as they accepted the validity of taking on a share of legacy National Debt. The idea of a modern state starting with a clean slate on National Debt would be like all your Christmases come together, unionists in Scotland or NI would be mad to turn it down. It will never be on the table.

I haven't researched the situation with the break up of the USSR but I suspect that just like your bogus Indyref statements your claims that the satellite states all started with a clean slate and no legacy liability back to Russia will not stack up.

 

[cremeegg]

As for pensions, public servants in NI would be changing employer. This is a perfectly normal event and it is perfectly normal for the old employer (UK) to be liable for pensionable service in its employment with the new employer (UI) taking on responsibility for subsequent pensionable service.

Pensions are deferred remuneration. When someone moves jobs there is clearly no question of the new employer taking on the pension responsibilities of the older employer, the services were not enjoyed by the new employer.

OK I am clear on pensions, I am satisfied which of the above I expect would be relevant (and who is stretching their analogy to support a prejudice) in the case of NI leaving UK and joining a UI.

 

[cremeegg]

In the contractual paperwork of course the debt stays with the UK. It would be impossibly messy to ask bondholders to split their bonds into Tartan Bonds (as they were called in Indyref) and HM Bonds.

Now where I have I heard that before? Oh yes here

The idea that outstanding debt obligations would be divvied up, one for me one for you, is a little naive. The existing bonds are liabilities of the UK government.

Any NI share of UK national debt would come with a claim on UK assets, how many ships of the British navy would we get for taking on a share of the debt? In the real world it is difficult to see how a UI could be forced to accept a share of the UK debt, while of course some portion might be adopted as part of a political settlement, a share that would reflect no navy ships I hope.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

OK I am clear on pensions, I am satisfied which of the above I expect would be relevant (and who is stretching their analogy to support a prejudice) in the case of NI leaving UK and joining a UI.

Since Scottish Indyref has been raised here there was no question in that debate but that public service pensions incurred in Scotland whilst in the UK would travel to an independent Scotland. I am unsure from your cryptic post if you are entirely clear on this.
On your other point, yes NI would be entitled to a share of UK assets. I presume the allocation of NI National Debt has been largely determined by capital expenditure and fiscal deficits incurred in NI. But yes to the extent that NI was allocated a share of the spend on defence materiel, that would be an area of intense negotiation.

 

[Baby boomer]

Since Scottish Indyref has been raised here there was no question in that debate but that public service pensions incurred in Scotland whilst in the UK would travel to an independent Scotland.

Very difficult to do, though. What precisely is a "public service pension incurred in Scotland" anyway? How do you deal with, say, a Scottish member of the armed forces or diplomatic service? Or their English equivalent who retires to Scotland. Or somebody who works for NHS Scotland and retires to Wales? Are records even kept that would allow it all to be disentangled?

I am unsure from your cryptic post if you are entirely clear on this.
On your other point, yes NI would be entitled to a share of UK assets. I presume the allocation of NI National Debt has been largely determined by capital expenditure and fiscal deficits incurred in NI. But yes to the extent that NI was allocated a share of the spend on defence materiel, that would be an area of intense negotiation.

And the nuclear deterrent? And the permanent seat on the UNSC? I think you'll find Britain will settle for a clean slate. It is the default position. The UK as a sovereign state incurred the debt. The UK will remain a sovereign state if NI secedes and joins a UI. That remaining UK sovereign state will still owe the entire national debt.

 

[Baby boomer]

Since Scottish Indyref has been raised here there was no question in that debate but that public service pensions incurred in Scotland whilst in the UK would travel to an independent Scotland.

Very difficult to do, though. What precisely is a "public service pension incurred in Scotland" anyway? How do you deal with, say, a Scottish member of the armed forces or diplomatic service? Or their English equivalent who retires to Scotland. Or somebody who works for NHS Scotland and retires to Wales? Are records even kept that would allow it all to be disentangled?

I am unsure from your cryptic post if you are entirely clear on this.
On your other point, yes NI would be entitled to a share of UK assets. I presume the allocation of NI National Debt has been largely determined by capital expenditure and fiscal deficits incurred in NI. But yes to the extent that NI was allocated a share of the spend on defence materiel, that would be an area of intense negotiation.

And the nuclear deterrent? And the permanent seat on the UNSC? I think you'll find Britain will settle for a clean slate. It is the default position. The UK as a sovereign state incurred the debt. The UK will remain a sovereign state if NI secedes and joins a UI. That remaining UK sovereign state will still owe the entire national debt

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Very difficult to do, though. What precisely is a "public service pension incurred in Scotland" anyway? How do you deal with, say, a Scottish member of the armed forces or diplomatic service? Or their English equivalent who retires to Scotland. Or somebody who works for NHS Scotland and retires to Wales? Are records even kept that would allow it all to be disentangled?

You’re rambling. No difficulty at all. If Edinburgh is paying the pensions now it will continue to pay the pensions.

And the nuclear deterrent? And the permanent seat on the UNSC? I think you'll find Britain will settle for a clean slate. It is the default position. The UK as a sovereign state incurred the debt. The UK will remain a sovereign state if NI secedes and joins a UI. That remaining UK sovereign state will still owe the entire national debt

You don’t climb down, do you? I accepted that there will be aspects of what the National Debt was spent on that will be disputed, an obvious one being any assets or infrastructure involved in maintaining the UK’s lead role as a super power. I am sure the furnishings at the UN are of a most luxurious kind but I can’t see the value of the UK’s permanent seat being a deal breaker.
You raised Indyref. The Indies were preparing to fight over how much of the National Debt truly belonged to Scotland. Nobody was suggesting that the UK would throw their hat at it.

Are you going to give us a source for your ludicrous claim that Westminster offered Scotland the option of being free of any liability for the National Debt if they adopted their own currency?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

@Baby boomer @cremeegg @WolfeTone
The Scottish Indyref discussions are of course relevant to Prof Doyle's ill informed economic doodles. On public service pensions this was the formal position agreed:

For current UK-wide public service pension schemes, the Scottish Government proposes taking its fair share of commitments based on meeting the pension entitlements of pensioners who live in Scotland.
Although the Scottish Government has set out a clear and unambiguous commitment on the pension responsibilities it will take on under independence, it also recognises that there would be a need for negotiation with the UK Government as part of the associated transfer of assets and liabilities.

"UK- wide schemes" include the biggies, Health and Education. Things like the civil service are already paid by the Scottish Government. The above statement is clear and common sense. Prof Doyle, I think alone amongst academic contributors, suggests that the responsibilities should remain with HM Government. His reasoning includes that the UK under Brexit agreed to take on the pensions of their EU representatives. Can anybody explain the contorted logic here? All I can think of is that Prof Doyle sees a precedent "Brits always pay for pensions in a divorce".

 

[WolfeTone]

I'm not sure why I'm being dragged back into this? This is like preliminary talks about talks for negotiation on an event that remains some distance over the horizon.

It is reasonable to assume, in my opinion, that if UI inherits the value of NI economy that it will also inherit some of the debt behind that value.
This will include in part, or all, pension rights and liabilities amongst other matters.
The UI will after all benefit from tax revenues when those pensions are spent into the UI economy.

But to what extent UI will inherit British liabilities is not clear.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I'm not sure why I'm being dragged back into this? This is like preliminary talks about talks for negotiation on an event that remains some distance over the horizon.

The main purpose in digging this rabbit hole was to discredit Prof SF Doyle or rather to give him his correct level of credit which is zero. It's just that you seemed initially impressed by the good Prof.

 

[WolfeTone]

It's just that you seemed initially impressed by the good Prof.

I was impressed with the article that was written about the professors report.

that is very good considered article.

I didn't read the report. I gave reasoning for this

As will the numerous other thoughts, views and studies will be considered flawed in the discourse of what a UI would/should look like.

if you say the report is fundamentally flawed on two counts I will take your word for it.
It matters not a jot.

And to reinforce that thinking

The article was well written but the report is a near irrelevance to me.

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.

Then you said

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.

Parked

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

@WolfeTone Yep, parked. Shouldn't have included you in last post.