I wonder if those opposed to the re-unification of Ireland will dismiss these University of British Columbia academics as another bunch of economic illiterates…
If it had been Harvard LSE Cambridge even the University of Ulster I would have been impressed but the University of British Columbia I’m slightly less impressed
As for the article far to many presumptions to take seriously but good try Jude
Now that’s what I call an open mind, neill – well done, move to the front of the class. Btw – what do you know about UBC? Or Kurt Huebner? Maybe a wee bit of research/engaging the brain before pronouncing judgement?
Jude
To be fair Neill is right to say there are a number of assumptions in the study which are by no means a given especially within an 8 year time span.
What would happen to all the public sector jobs here which we are so reliant on?
Surely there would be rationalisation there?
The link is only to an article about the study so there is no real detail.
Also it is always good to know who commissions these things. Who are the mysterious KRB who seem not even to have a website?
Having said that I admit I am an economic illiterate and it may well be that unification would leave us all better off.
Now if only Gerry and Martin would follow Peter into the wilderness we could all move on!
“What would happen to all the public sector jobs here which we are so reliant on?”
Gio, the public sector jobs are being slashed because Westminster are going to continue cutting the block grant each year until we come into line with the UK on this.
We don’t have a choice and I believe they are right to do so. It is not in britains best interests to keep squandering money here.
The extra money to offset welfare cuts will not last the 4 years planned as the block grant will be cut again in 12 months plus in addition we now owe billions in debt to Westminster on top which need to be repaid. So this agreement has no long term solutions, just a stop gap before bankruptcy.
The bad times have not started yet and I would be surprised if the public sector did not come to a complete standstill over union led strikes in the coming years.
Northern Irelands economy has never been so bad and is about to get worse.
Cutting corporation tax will only work if it can bring in sufficient new corporate business and create sufficient new medium to high paid jobs. Using the land at the maze to kick start a warehousing and business park developments, hotels and public facilities with government subsidies for private investment would do this. Growing our tourism industry will be key and people are already paying to visit back street museums behind west Belfast pubs at the moment. Buses are filled with people doing the troubles tours daily, imagine we had a proper museum at the maze built around the listed buildings to kick start a major development over the vast amount of land there along the motorway. We already have the plans for motorway slip road.
“Having said that I admit I am an economic illiterate and it may well be that unification would leave us all better off.”
I am a business owner and an employer but am by no means an economic expert, but you don’t need to be to understand the same public services could be delivered more cost effectively through unification and would result in less high paid bureaucratic jobs and actually give us more doctors, nurses and actual jobs the public sector would benefit greatly from and removing the high paid jobs required to duplicate services on both parts of the island.
This could bring better public services to both parts of the island including free health care for all of our citizens.
The UK are moving away from this as it is abused within the EU. If Cameron doesn’t get sufficient amendments, his party will take england out of the EU and they can certainly afford to do this. We on the other hand cannot.
You are a smart guy Gio, surely you can see that makes sense.
“Now if only Gerry and Martin would follow Peter into the wilderness we could all move on!”
Peter left because the DUP vote s about to be slashed, UUP will begin a turn around against them, Martin McGuinness will become first minister and SF will be the largest party in the north, that is why he left now to leave on a high and so the turnaround didn’t happen on his watch.
jessica
Thanks for that.
I was not trying to argue for the preservation of all our public sector, rather pointing out, as I think you are, that many of those jobs would be lost as unnecessary duplication.
Those job losses will surely put a further strain on the new all Ireland economy. It may be overly optimistic to see that being offset by job creation within 8 years as this study suggests.
Again you put some faith in tourism here, which I am dubious about. How long can troubles tourism continue to bring in visitors?
Will security be an issue? Will there be riots on the streets? Hard to say.
Perhaps the full detail of this study will show they have taken these things into account, but as I say, Jude’s link is only to a news article about the study.
I’ve got the full report now, gio, and will try to put it up. I note you make a judgement on it (‘overly optimisitc’, ‘dubious’ etc) before seeing it yourself. I don’t know but my experience is that not all studies of this kind are commissioned – publish or perish is the academic watchword, and academics often undertake research of their own initiative.
“I was not trying to argue for the preservation of all our public sector, rather pointing out, as I think you are, that many of those jobs would be lost as unnecessary duplication. Those job losses will surely put a further strain on the new all Ireland economy.”
Yes it would, which is why I was surprised by the level of support in the south for reunification without any discussion after the joke poll on nolan recently.
Perhaps discussion and reality would put more off I dont know, but it looks to me as though there is plenty of good will on the part of the people of ireland and to be honest I believe both governments would also be willing to assist us rebuild a unified economy if we can get our act together.
At the moment these jobs are going to be lost in the north anyway. Britain are going to reduce the block grant annually by applying their own fiscal policy here so failure to reduce those jobs will result in that amount taken out of the annual payment whether we like it or not.
What we are doing at present is borrowing off britain to pay for our delay in meeting their targets and we are now billions in debt which at present there is no chance of paying back.
To counter the job losses gio, we need major investment in the private sector and major developments for the construction sectors to cover the next 30 years.
I am not aware of any plans on the table on how to deliver this so my suggestions are simple armchair economics and nothing more.
It is disgraceful that there is no economic strategy in the public domain and we are having to make one up on a blog site.
If you ask me, britain are trying to force reunification through enforced austerity and severe cuts to our block grant.
None of our politicians appear to have any idea beyond the english paying or way and for nolan to ask whether the irish state could afford us I thought was deeply embarrassing. Borrowing to delay the hurt coming down the road is all was achieved in the last agreement.
So what can we do about it?
We have the giants causeway, mourne mountains and little else.
Northern ireland alone is in no fit shape to borrow sufficient money, so increasing tourism revenue is a no brainer and if Iceland can build a tourism industry out of financial failure, I am sure we can do the same over political failure providing we can turn it into political success by having not a forced reunification but an inclusive one that has full support of everyone here and build on conflict resolution which we would be in a unique position to sell.
But if we don’t even discuss it, how will it ever happen.
Riots are a job for the police and locking people up will soon sort that out. The troubles are over whether some like it or not and such behaviour should not be tolerated from any quarter.
The money generated from this can be used to offset borrowing which needs to be invested in projects as mentioned.
Jude
I did say “may be overly optimistic”,which is such a mild comment it is almost self-evident. The dubious comment was in response to a point made by jessica which was not about the study.
I will try and have a read of the full report, which I take it you have done as you seem to have made favourable assumptions about it, in that you express the hope it will not be dismissed.
It did appear from your link to be commissioned by an organisation called KRB whoever they are?
“an organisation called KRB whoever they are?” – I think they explain reasonably well on the link, gio. I didn’t know that hoping something wouldn’t be dismissed (before reading) meant I had ‘favourable assumptions about it’ – those are your interpretations,gio. I think you’ll know if I have favourable or less than favourable views on the report when I write about it.
“Again you put some faith in tourism here, which I am dubious about. How long can troubles tourism continue to bring in visitors?”
Gio, it isn’t a matter of if, it is all about when.
We do not have any choice, a museum of the conflict built around the listed buildings at the maze will give a permanent and authentic location, much like concentration camps bring in long term revenue in Poland and even Kilmainham jail still brings in 330,000 visitors per year.
So the answer, if done right it will be permanent.
Why do you think they were listed and for how much longer can we afford to ignore this do you think?
Not to mention, a museum telling an impartial account with narratives from all points of view would help us understand each other and this is still desperately needed to cement peace never mind help rebuild the economy. The same events are seen in the context of the life experiences of those involved. These can have completely different perspectives as you well know, and all narratives must be given credence and understanding to prevent a repeat which will be inevitable otherwise.
The museum should have a section on the orange order, the irish who fought in the somme and other battles in british uniform as well as partition, the troubles and in the future the events leading to independence and whatever form that will be. You underestimate the international interest there would be in this.
All I can do is make the suggestion, it is up to others to validate. But we need to do something.
“What would happen to all the public sector jobs here which we are so reliant on?”
Gio, you do realise that these jobs are already gone anyway?
Our politicians failed to convince the UK to pay a penny more to allow us time to replace them within the private sector.
That means the block grant has been and will be continuously reduced by the amount that would have been saved anyway, and to pay the difference, we have been allowed to borrow.
That money borrowed to date has not been used to create economic growth, but to fund the extended continuance of unrealistically high public expenditure both in jobs and on an above UK average level welfare system which we cannot afford.
In 12 months time, the block grant will be further reduced by money once again not saved by robbing peter to pay paul in delaying these job losses or further borrowing to keep some level of private sector investment going.
Why don’t you research how much money we are now already in debt and tell me how the hell we are ever going to repay this bearing in mind we still have not started discussing how we are going to meet the economic targets set to us by our english paymasters and do keep asking why obvious solutions are being treated as dubious or dismissed out of hand as this report will be in unionist circles?
Unionists are living in hope that the english will bail us out down the road and Sinn Fein are making all the right sounds but allowing unionism to send us into bankruptcy and economic turmoil so england will either have to bail us out or reunification will be the only option left, either way win win but not a long term strategy by any means and not one the public here will be happy with.
Perhaps they are right and the hurt is necessary as part of the reunification process and all we can do is make steps in the right direction for when the inevitable happens.
The conflicts honeymoon is over and the divorce is all set to get messy.
“It did appear from your link to be commissioned by an organisation called KRB whoever they are?”
The study was commissioned by K.R.B., a San Francisco Bay area–based nonprofit social welfare organization that promotes social welfare and conflict resolution through education.
“I am merely pointing out that the study takes several assumptions as the starting point for its conclusions. Assumptions which may be reasonable but are hardly guaranteed (events dear boy!).”
I think the assumptions are more than reasonable and don’t detract from the reams of factual data they have collated.
But yes, all economic studies looking into the future are subject to assumptions.
Unless you have a crystal ball then I don’t see a way of providing a cast iron guarantee on the success of any business plan.
For instance, in a few years, england may have voted to exit the EU, the brexit.
This could result in a restoration of the armed border with irish and british troops asking for passports to cross.
It could on the other hand result in Scotland and Wales deciding to stay in the EU and ireland uniting and joining a new United States of Britain consisting of Ireland, Scotland and Wales with a border around England.
Is that really the level you want to discuss this Gio?
Jude
Don’t kid a kidder! You have posted it as a positive story in favour of unification, and it is clear you want it to be right.
I have no problem with that and their conclusions may well be right, indeed I hope they are.
I am merely pointing out that the study takes several assumptions as the starting point for its conclusions. Assumptions which may be reasonable but are hardly guaranteed (events dear boy!).
But I look forward to your in depth analysis as I found the jargon a bit difficult myself.
As for KRB if you think that was reasonably well explained, no doubt you can tell me what the acronym stands for? Or point me to their website?
I have posted it, as I recall, as an example of some economic illiterates in UBC. Can’t recall I said “This is a fine report” – did I and just forgot? In which case maybe you’d remind me where. You’re right that it lists a number of assumptions – but look at them and you’ll see they’re not exactly wild assumptions: harmonization of tax systems;diminished trade barriers; adoption of the euro in the north; productivity improvements with all-island economy; and fiscal transfers, which seems to mean assumption of north’s deficit by the south. I’m a long way from being an economist or, like yourself, understanding all of the report, but those look more like steps to take or outcomes, rather than assumptions on which everything is built. I don’t know that the report stands up: it would need a professional economist (with no bias, as are the people who conducted it, as far as I can gather) to assess its validity; but I definitely welcome it, since it’s at last an attempt to look at the economic implications of Irish re-unification. They clearly believe it would enhance both jurisdictions – and I find it interesting that they repeatedly see the north as the area most in need of development, whereas we’ve always been told to think of the south as the poor relation. To repeat: I’m no economist – near illiterate, maybe – but it seems reasonable to me. As to who they are, they appear to be a group of academics from different backgrounds who combine to draw up economic models, particularly for partitioned countries.
“I find it interesting that they repeatedly see the north as the area most in need of development, whereas we’ve always been told to think of the south as the poor relation.”
Yes, but since we are talking fictitious assumptions.
In the south of Ireland annual revenue is over 180 billion euros, their debt to income deficit stands at around 112% of GDP and is falling, plus a chunk of this will be dropped when they can refloat the banking sector.
That is fact.
Unionists tell us the south is broke. That isn’t even assumption, it is fictitious.
Northern Ireland brings in less than 11 billion and spends over 20 billion every year. That is an annual deficit of 185% of GDP which is made up by the tax payer in the south of England and doesn’t account for security and other conflict related costs.
Fact
England is no longer prepared to subsidise the poorer parts of the UK to the level it has, and is implementing economic adjustments which will hurt wales and northern parts of England but by far the most detriment will be to northern Ireland.
Fact
Northern Ireland has already had these adjustments imposed on us and is now over 1.8 billion in debt to England on top of a negative income or 185% of GDP deficit to basically hide it for a year or two longer.
Again, that is fact.
Unionists tell us Northern Ireland is a growing economy and needs the UK.
Now we are back to assumption, quite possibly fictitious assumption.
The souths annual trade with England/britain over the water, is over 1 billion per year in both directions. A major issue if england leave the EU
Unionists will say leaving the UK will disrupt the east west trade, but it doesn’t really stack up as you can see from the souths exports facts in this report, which are not assumptions unlike unionist claims to the contrary.
Tax harmonisation will result in corporate business coming north which will lead to thousands of new medium paid jobs. I dont see that is assumption, no economist worth their salt would risk their reputation to say otherwise. I would put that as fact
As for corporation tax, unionists are at least prepared to admit this is a major advantage and have been trying to accommodate it.
In my own opinion, there isn’t a snowballs chance in hell of Northern Ireland achieving a 12.5% corporation tax rate within the UK. It would be assumption to suggest a timeframe or even whether this would ever bed in sufficiently to deliver within the UK.
But let’s stick with facts. The figures show it took the south over 10 years to get a return on this. Can Northern Ireland really afford to try and play catch-up? I would say, avoid assumption, stick only to the facts, look at the figures and make your own minds up.
This report suggests that merging into an established economy with attractive corporate tax would have much faster return than going it alone. That is not assumption I would also have that down as fact.
A single currency on this island would benefit smaller businesses such as my own which would make it a lot easier to trade throughout the island. Again, this is not assumption, this is fact and multi-currency is a genuine issue we (businesses) have to deal with. A much bigger disadvantage for small to medium businesses than corporates which is the majority of businesses here who would benefit.
I think it is time we took our heads out of our backsides and took this seriously. Imagine a small emigrant Irish culture group in the US have commissioned this report and our own elected representatives have done nothing.
And I mean nothing for how to deal with the economics whether though unification, going it alone or within the UK.
All we have no the table is the tory fiscal plan which from an English perspective is what I would do in their shoes also.
Time is running out for our politicians to come clean on the true extent ot the economic disaster coming down the road. I suspect it will be the unions and public sector employees who will take the lead when the strikes and fightback start. They are the ones who will be taking the hit first.
jessica
Thanks. I did find that too but was unsure if this was the right organisation as there is v little information.
If they did commission the study I would say they would hardly be unbiased as they would clearly be in favour of unification.
That does not invalidate the study, but it is relevant.
When a poll comes out indicating less than favourable figures in favour of unification, Jude and others are quick to point to who commissioned it and their motives, whether it is the BBC or the News Letter or the INM group.
On this study Jude has been remarkably uninterested in who paid for it.
On your other comment I am not sure what you mean by what level I want to discuss it on.
Basically I think the study interesting but of limited value given the number of unknowable assumptions involved. Is that not reasonable?
I’m struggling to remember having condemned a survey because of its source. If I have done, gio, do let me know and I’ll be the first to concede an unfair bias. Of course, this report isn’t a survey – it’s a model which is set up and then argued for. I think it should stand or fall on the basis of its logic, not on its source. Right now I’m beginning to think that Alex Kane was right when he said he thought that, in a referendum, both unionists and nationalists would vote in 99% of cases with their heart, not their head. This report has been greeted enthusiastically by nationalists/republicans, sneered at by unionists. Strong case there, Alex…
“Right now I’m beginning to think that Alex Kane was right when he said he thought that, in a referendum, both unionists and nationalists would vote in 99% of cases with their heart, not their head.”
Jude, in the absence of debate and inclusive serious discussion of all options between all parties on both of these islands, what else have the electorate to base their vote on but their heart if they bother to vote at all.
“Basically I think the study interesting but of limited value given the number of unknowable assumptions involved. Is that not reasonable?”
Actually, no it isn’t and I will explain why.
First of all, there is no comparison with polls which are nothing more than a reflection of popular opinion based on information available at the time which is usually biased to begin with.
An economic study such as this, when conducted by people with ample relevant experience and qualifications, cannot be considered biased when based on factual statistics as this has in abundance.
Every economic study to be of any worth to governments or to be used in business planning, must make assumptions when projecting into the future – bar none. That is fact. This report makes it clear what those are and the reader then decides who relevant those assumptions are and reviews them as time goes on to ensure the conditions remain within those parameters or suitable adjustments are made to compensate. That is how every business works. Follow good practice and it really isn’t that difficult to make money.
One of the assumptions for example is that the bank of england doesnt screw up and devalue sterling.
Yes, if the value of sterling drops, the benefits of trade within the EU are skewed, but if that happens, the strength of sterling is the UKs strongest asset and it is the financial sectors strength that allows the south of england to finance the rest of the UK. In those circumstances, it is assumption to assume they would continue to subsidise northern irelands economy and we are facing other issues that would have greater negative impact. So it comes down to risk assessment based on the assumptions and what if scenario business case planning. Again, that is normal good practice and up to the government, not the provider of the report to consider.
But in the light of your comment, what you may want to consider is that northern Irelands whole existence is based on assumption. No one knows the percentage of the deficit here england will be willing to pay in 12 months or what the next hack out of the block grant would be.
Yet, you have no problems with those assumptions it appears.
I therefore feel that the real reason you feel this report has limited value is for purely emotional reasons that it goes against this part of ireland remaining in the UK and you are reverting to traditional unionist form, whether you consider yourself one or not, that you are unable to give reasonable merit and consideration to the prospect that unification could be economically the best option for us.
And that is what frustrates me the most.
Would it not be prudent to consider all options equally?
Jude
Where did I say you condemned anything?
Since the report is based on a series of assumptions, then it is at least worth considering that those assumptions and therefore the conclusions, might be designed to provide the result that the sponsors would be happy with.
But maybe these academics are above such mundane concerns as where their funding will come from.
Well gio, I take my hat off to you – it’s not every day I encounter someone more cynical than myself. What on earth would be the point in anyone commissioning any study, if the results were inevitably be produced to favour the sponsor? I suppose I could dig back and check about whether you said I said that I ….Zzzz.
“Since the report is based on a series of assumptions, then it is at least worth considering that those assumptions and therefore the conclusions, might be designed to provide the result that the sponsors would be happy with.”
Gio, that is not only inaccurate but doesn’t even make sense.
The report is based on reunification only and uses different potential models to cover sufficient options for the reader to base a decision on.
It makes no conclusions on what should actually happen, no economic study does so stop getting your knickers in a twist.
The report has no bias other than it is considering the economics of a situation that you would be biased against.
There would still be a 50 billion deficit over the 8 years so this in itself is not sufficient for all stakeholders to start getting excited about.
As I said, this would have to go hand in hand with an overarching all island economic growth strategy with at least 25 years projections and will certainly require considerable growth in the tourism industry as well as major long term development projects to be invested in to get the biggest return for the people.
That is simply not possible for northern ireland as a stand alone entity.
Where is our independent economic strategy for northern ireland within the UK full stop?
Are you simply hoping that mr beans UK economic report will support simply throwing more money our way?
Or could you simply not care less what the economic future is so long as it is within the union?
Jude
You make an accusation but you can’t be bothered to back it up.
Pointless stuff.
So as long as polls are conducted by reputable companies you will accept them regardless of who commissioned them?
Jessica
I am not a Unionist, so your further criticisms of what you think I think are hard for me to comment on.
I have already said I hope the study is proved accurate but don’t let that stop you.
‘I am not a unionist’? Mmmm. If polls are conducted by reputable companies – yes, of course I’ll accept them. I mightn’t like them, and I might want to know how they conducted their survey, but yes. And I repeat – this wasn’t based on a poll. And yes, sometimes I get too bored to answer every question fired at me. And your point is?
“And yes, sometimes I get too bored to answer every question fired at me. And your point is?”
Especially since gio has ignored my point about the statement he made regarding pubic sector job losses.
No point demanding comment about things we don’t know if we are going to ignore the things we do know.
“I am not a Unionist, so your further criticisms of what you think I think ”
I am not criticising what I think you think gio, I believe you have a very good point regarding the jobs loss in the public sector and I wanted you to follow up on it rather than use it as a reason against unification and just leave it there.
I am happy to discuss how we can pay our way without unification but think it is foolish to leave it off the table altogether for the reason I am very confident there is no viable economic alternative and that it will become very clear over the coming years ahead.
As I said, those public sector jobs are gone anyway, england have demanded it and followed up by no longer paying for them resulting in new debt for northern ireland which we have never had before.
Had we put together an economic growth strategy that would have offset those jobs in a reasonable timeframe rather than stop at natural wastage, then there is a good chance the Tories would have given us a billion pounds to implement it. It would have made economic sense for them to do so.
I see no signals that they will in the future revert to funding high public estate here.
Ryan – I’ve discouraged personal remarks from neill and others – I’d like you too to observe the civilities. You can disagree, even be witty about one another, but don’t just name-call…Grma
The benefits to the tourist industry if we had the brains to market the troubles would more than triple those projections and benefit the whole island.
Getting our act together over renewable energy and reducing our reliance on Europe for fuel would also help reduce electricity costs for consumers and businesses alike. Just ask Ballymena what they would think about that.
But, rather than discuss these things sensibly, we will focus on which team scores the most goals in Europe, what flags are waved and what roads can be marched down.
I taught summer school in UBC for six successive years and the impression I got was of a highly-rated, research-active institution. But then I don’t know what neill obviously knows about them…
ETH Zürich is an engineering, science, technology, mathematics and management university. It may feature in international rankings as one of the best universities in the world and Dr. Renger Herman van Nieuwkoop might know a thing or two about transportation networks, economic equilibrium and industrial structures but how on earth is that relevant to this part of the world? How could harmonisation of the tax systems across the island possibly encourage more foreign direct investment, reduce trade barriers and cut transport and currency transaction costs? Please, no more discussion on this, we have too many burning issues to deal with at present.
What we really need is a distinguished scholar to develop a marketing strategy in order to promote the aesthetic features of our peace walls as long term tourist attractions. Now that would generate a few pounds, we will have no euro here. Time marches on and we must march with it.
An island with one economy makes absolute sense. Its the narrow mindedness of the partitionists that refuse to consider the benefits. And might I add the refusal to bring anything beneficial to the island on which they reside.
“So we should have a united Europe then or a united Mexico United States and Canada then ok…”
Is that the best you can do neill?
Ireland is a single country, single nation with a gerrymandered border to accommodate continued foreign occupation that carved a line through villages and caused an economic disaster for the north which we are only now beginning to pay for financially. Economically, the worst has yet to come.
We are not talking about uniting two countries, we are taking reunification of our small island.
Even though the majority of Northern Irish people don’t wish it. We are not occupied by a foreign power the majority of people in Northern Ireland choose to be part of that country.
That’s why I would have a border poll to decide it tomorrow.
The majority of Northern Ireland do not wish to be governed by England, quite the opposite, the majority here in fact do not want to be ruled by england.
A border poll is the only way to prove this one or the other and I agree with you that it should happen as soon as possible.
I also agree it is in unionisms best interests to have it sooner while you still have a majority and before the financial costs of remaining in the UK are felt in our pockets.
jessica
I am not sure what point about the public sector you wanted me to respond to.
I am in agreement that we are far to reliant on those jobs with something like 30% of our workforce in public sector jobs.
I am not making an argument for the status quo, or the sustainability of Northern Ireland, which is why I find your assumptions that I am a unionist a bit irksome. (If we start trying to second guess people then debate becomes impossible).
All I have been trying to do is address this particular report.
Most of your comments on this thread I am in agreement with, though I am not sure that tourism can really expand in the way you think. However you clearly know more about it than I do so I defer to you on that.
I see from Sluggerotoole someone has checked the commissioning of this report and linked it to friends of Sinn Fein.
That in itself is fine, but a bit of openness in the first place would have been better.
“I see from Sluggerotoole someone has checked the commissioning of this report and linked it to friends of Sinn Fein.
That in itself is fine, but a bit of openness in the first place would have been better.”
What was their opinion of the report itself or did they not bother reading it having linked it to Sinn Fein which by the way I would be pleased about if it is true?
I will tell you why.
This report not only stacks up, but supports ECB step by step guidelines for building economies looking out of recession.
Lets put it another way, If Sinn Fein are elected and choose to implement this report, they will need to move away from the far left socialism and move towards the centre ground political economics. Not really the sounds they have been making to date is it?
It would make them much more attractive to me but not to all of their supporters many of whom espouse more or less communist prattle and reference economic policies from 100 years ago. Cringe
If it is true, and they understand they may have to modernise their ideology, I can see why they might have kept it quiet until they got the facts.
Perhaps wishful thinking on my part though. They will have to speak for themselves on this but it could be divisive.
It would explain their recent change of tact regarding the agreement in stormont though.
If it had been Harvard LSE Cambridge even the University of Ulster I would have been impressed but the University of British Columbia I’m slightly less impressed
As for the article far to many presumptions to take seriously but good try Jude
Now that’s what I call an open mind, neill – well done, move to the front of the class. Btw – what do you know about UBC? Or Kurt Huebner? Maybe a wee bit of research/engaging the brain before pronouncing judgement?
Jude, I think you’re being very presumptuous about Neill – ‘engaging the brain before pronouncing judgment’!
“As for the article far to many presumptions to take seriously but good try Jude”
The more of your comments I see Neill, the more I suspect your related to nutty Willie Frazer….
Yeah and your Barry McElduff `s love child as well
You’re doing it again, neill…
As was Ryan I presume you didn’t notice? 🙂
Good point, Neill. I shall indeed remind him/her. Grma.
Jude
To be fair Neill is right to say there are a number of assumptions in the study which are by no means a given especially within an 8 year time span.
What would happen to all the public sector jobs here which we are so reliant on?
Surely there would be rationalisation there?
The link is only to an article about the study so there is no real detail.
Also it is always good to know who commissions these things. Who are the mysterious KRB who seem not even to have a website?
Having said that I admit I am an economic illiterate and it may well be that unification would leave us all better off.
Now if only Gerry and Martin would follow Peter into the wilderness we could all move on!
“What would happen to all the public sector jobs here which we are so reliant on?”
Gio, the public sector jobs are being slashed because Westminster are going to continue cutting the block grant each year until we come into line with the UK on this.
We don’t have a choice and I believe they are right to do so. It is not in britains best interests to keep squandering money here.
The extra money to offset welfare cuts will not last the 4 years planned as the block grant will be cut again in 12 months plus in addition we now owe billions in debt to Westminster on top which need to be repaid. So this agreement has no long term solutions, just a stop gap before bankruptcy.
The bad times have not started yet and I would be surprised if the public sector did not come to a complete standstill over union led strikes in the coming years.
Northern Irelands economy has never been so bad and is about to get worse.
Cutting corporation tax will only work if it can bring in sufficient new corporate business and create sufficient new medium to high paid jobs. Using the land at the maze to kick start a warehousing and business park developments, hotels and public facilities with government subsidies for private investment would do this. Growing our tourism industry will be key and people are already paying to visit back street museums behind west Belfast pubs at the moment. Buses are filled with people doing the troubles tours daily, imagine we had a proper museum at the maze built around the listed buildings to kick start a major development over the vast amount of land there along the motorway. We already have the plans for motorway slip road.
“Having said that I admit I am an economic illiterate and it may well be that unification would leave us all better off.”
I am a business owner and an employer but am by no means an economic expert, but you don’t need to be to understand the same public services could be delivered more cost effectively through unification and would result in less high paid bureaucratic jobs and actually give us more doctors, nurses and actual jobs the public sector would benefit greatly from and removing the high paid jobs required to duplicate services on both parts of the island.
This could bring better public services to both parts of the island including free health care for all of our citizens.
The UK are moving away from this as it is abused within the EU. If Cameron doesn’t get sufficient amendments, his party will take england out of the EU and they can certainly afford to do this. We on the other hand cannot.
You are a smart guy Gio, surely you can see that makes sense.
“Now if only Gerry and Martin would follow Peter into the wilderness we could all move on!”
Peter left because the DUP vote s about to be slashed, UUP will begin a turn around against them, Martin McGuinness will become first minister and SF will be the largest party in the north, that is why he left now to leave on a high and so the turnaround didn’t happen on his watch.
He can be made a lord on go and retire to London.
jessica
Thanks for that.
I was not trying to argue for the preservation of all our public sector, rather pointing out, as I think you are, that many of those jobs would be lost as unnecessary duplication.
Those job losses will surely put a further strain on the new all Ireland economy. It may be overly optimistic to see that being offset by job creation within 8 years as this study suggests.
Again you put some faith in tourism here, which I am dubious about. How long can troubles tourism continue to bring in visitors?
Will security be an issue? Will there be riots on the streets? Hard to say.
Perhaps the full detail of this study will show they have taken these things into account, but as I say, Jude’s link is only to a news article about the study.
I’ve got the full report now, gio, and will try to put it up. I note you make a judgement on it (‘overly optimisitc’, ‘dubious’ etc) before seeing it yourself. I don’t know but my experience is that not all studies of this kind are commissioned – publish or perish is the academic watchword, and academics often undertake research of their own initiative.
“I was not trying to argue for the preservation of all our public sector, rather pointing out, as I think you are, that many of those jobs would be lost as unnecessary duplication. Those job losses will surely put a further strain on the new all Ireland economy.”
Yes it would, which is why I was surprised by the level of support in the south for reunification without any discussion after the joke poll on nolan recently.
Perhaps discussion and reality would put more off I dont know, but it looks to me as though there is plenty of good will on the part of the people of ireland and to be honest I believe both governments would also be willing to assist us rebuild a unified economy if we can get our act together.
At the moment these jobs are going to be lost in the north anyway. Britain are going to reduce the block grant annually by applying their own fiscal policy here so failure to reduce those jobs will result in that amount taken out of the annual payment whether we like it or not.
What we are doing at present is borrowing off britain to pay for our delay in meeting their targets and we are now billions in debt which at present there is no chance of paying back.
To counter the job losses gio, we need major investment in the private sector and major developments for the construction sectors to cover the next 30 years.
I am not aware of any plans on the table on how to deliver this so my suggestions are simple armchair economics and nothing more.
It is disgraceful that there is no economic strategy in the public domain and we are having to make one up on a blog site.
If you ask me, britain are trying to force reunification through enforced austerity and severe cuts to our block grant.
None of our politicians appear to have any idea beyond the english paying or way and for nolan to ask whether the irish state could afford us I thought was deeply embarrassing. Borrowing to delay the hurt coming down the road is all was achieved in the last agreement.
So what can we do about it?
We have the giants causeway, mourne mountains and little else.
Northern ireland alone is in no fit shape to borrow sufficient money, so increasing tourism revenue is a no brainer and if Iceland can build a tourism industry out of financial failure, I am sure we can do the same over political failure providing we can turn it into political success by having not a forced reunification but an inclusive one that has full support of everyone here and build on conflict resolution which we would be in a unique position to sell.
But if we don’t even discuss it, how will it ever happen.
Riots are a job for the police and locking people up will soon sort that out. The troubles are over whether some like it or not and such behaviour should not be tolerated from any quarter.
The money generated from this can be used to offset borrowing which needs to be invested in projects as mentioned.
Jude
I did say “may be overly optimistic”,which is such a mild comment it is almost self-evident. The dubious comment was in response to a point made by jessica which was not about the study.
I will try and have a read of the full report, which I take it you have done as you seem to have made favourable assumptions about it, in that you express the hope it will not be dismissed.
It did appear from your link to be commissioned by an organisation called KRB whoever they are?
“an organisation called KRB whoever they are?” – I think they explain reasonably well on the link, gio. I didn’t know that hoping something wouldn’t be dismissed (before reading) meant I had ‘favourable assumptions about it’ – those are your interpretations,gio. I think you’ll know if I have favourable or less than favourable views on the report when I write about it.
“Again you put some faith in tourism here, which I am dubious about. How long can troubles tourism continue to bring in visitors?”
Gio, it isn’t a matter of if, it is all about when.
We do not have any choice, a museum of the conflict built around the listed buildings at the maze will give a permanent and authentic location, much like concentration camps bring in long term revenue in Poland and even Kilmainham jail still brings in 330,000 visitors per year.
So the answer, if done right it will be permanent.
Why do you think they were listed and for how much longer can we afford to ignore this do you think?
Not to mention, a museum telling an impartial account with narratives from all points of view would help us understand each other and this is still desperately needed to cement peace never mind help rebuild the economy. The same events are seen in the context of the life experiences of those involved. These can have completely different perspectives as you well know, and all narratives must be given credence and understanding to prevent a repeat which will be inevitable otherwise.
The museum should have a section on the orange order, the irish who fought in the somme and other battles in british uniform as well as partition, the troubles and in the future the events leading to independence and whatever form that will be. You underestimate the international interest there would be in this.
All I can do is make the suggestion, it is up to others to validate. But we need to do something.
“What would happen to all the public sector jobs here which we are so reliant on?”
Gio, you do realise that these jobs are already gone anyway?
Our politicians failed to convince the UK to pay a penny more to allow us time to replace them within the private sector.
That means the block grant has been and will be continuously reduced by the amount that would have been saved anyway, and to pay the difference, we have been allowed to borrow.
That money borrowed to date has not been used to create economic growth, but to fund the extended continuance of unrealistically high public expenditure both in jobs and on an above UK average level welfare system which we cannot afford.
In 12 months time, the block grant will be further reduced by money once again not saved by robbing peter to pay paul in delaying these job losses or further borrowing to keep some level of private sector investment going.
Why don’t you research how much money we are now already in debt and tell me how the hell we are ever going to repay this bearing in mind we still have not started discussing how we are going to meet the economic targets set to us by our english paymasters and do keep asking why obvious solutions are being treated as dubious or dismissed out of hand as this report will be in unionist circles?
Unionists are living in hope that the english will bail us out down the road and Sinn Fein are making all the right sounds but allowing unionism to send us into bankruptcy and economic turmoil so england will either have to bail us out or reunification will be the only option left, either way win win but not a long term strategy by any means and not one the public here will be happy with.
Perhaps they are right and the hurt is necessary as part of the reunification process and all we can do is make steps in the right direction for when the inevitable happens.
The conflicts honeymoon is over and the divorce is all set to get messy.
“It did appear from your link to be commissioned by an organisation called KRB whoever they are?”
The study was commissioned by K.R.B., a San Francisco Bay area–based nonprofit social welfare organization that promotes social welfare and conflict resolution through education.
A few searches on google and got this
http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/08/05/irish_brotherhood_at_the_knights_of_the_red_branch_hall.php
“I am merely pointing out that the study takes several assumptions as the starting point for its conclusions. Assumptions which may be reasonable but are hardly guaranteed (events dear boy!).”
I think the assumptions are more than reasonable and don’t detract from the reams of factual data they have collated.
But yes, all economic studies looking into the future are subject to assumptions.
Unless you have a crystal ball then I don’t see a way of providing a cast iron guarantee on the success of any business plan.
For instance, in a few years, england may have voted to exit the EU, the brexit.
This could result in a restoration of the armed border with irish and british troops asking for passports to cross.
It could on the other hand result in Scotland and Wales deciding to stay in the EU and ireland uniting and joining a new United States of Britain consisting of Ireland, Scotland and Wales with a border around England.
Is that really the level you want to discuss this Gio?
I thought you had more sense
Jude
Don’t kid a kidder! You have posted it as a positive story in favour of unification, and it is clear you want it to be right.
I have no problem with that and their conclusions may well be right, indeed I hope they are.
I am merely pointing out that the study takes several assumptions as the starting point for its conclusions. Assumptions which may be reasonable but are hardly guaranteed (events dear boy!).
But I look forward to your in depth analysis as I found the jargon a bit difficult myself.
As for KRB if you think that was reasonably well explained, no doubt you can tell me what the acronym stands for? Or point me to their website?
I have posted it, as I recall, as an example of some economic illiterates in UBC. Can’t recall I said “This is a fine report” – did I and just forgot? In which case maybe you’d remind me where. You’re right that it lists a number of assumptions – but look at them and you’ll see they’re not exactly wild assumptions: harmonization of tax systems;diminished trade barriers; adoption of the euro in the north; productivity improvements with all-island economy; and fiscal transfers, which seems to mean assumption of north’s deficit by the south. I’m a long way from being an economist or, like yourself, understanding all of the report, but those look more like steps to take or outcomes, rather than assumptions on which everything is built. I don’t know that the report stands up: it would need a professional economist (with no bias, as are the people who conducted it, as far as I can gather) to assess its validity; but I definitely welcome it, since it’s at last an attempt to look at the economic implications of Irish re-unification. They clearly believe it would enhance both jurisdictions – and I find it interesting that they repeatedly see the north as the area most in need of development, whereas we’ve always been told to think of the south as the poor relation. To repeat: I’m no economist – near illiterate, maybe – but it seems reasonable to me. As to who they are, they appear to be a group of academics from different backgrounds who combine to draw up economic models, particularly for partitioned countries.
“I find it interesting that they repeatedly see the north as the area most in need of development, whereas we’ve always been told to think of the south as the poor relation.”
Yes, but since we are talking fictitious assumptions.
In the south of Ireland annual revenue is over 180 billion euros, their debt to income deficit stands at around 112% of GDP and is falling, plus a chunk of this will be dropped when they can refloat the banking sector.
That is fact.
Unionists tell us the south is broke. That isn’t even assumption, it is fictitious.
Northern Ireland brings in less than 11 billion and spends over 20 billion every year. That is an annual deficit of 185% of GDP which is made up by the tax payer in the south of England and doesn’t account for security and other conflict related costs.
Fact
England is no longer prepared to subsidise the poorer parts of the UK to the level it has, and is implementing economic adjustments which will hurt wales and northern parts of England but by far the most detriment will be to northern Ireland.
Fact
Northern Ireland has already had these adjustments imposed on us and is now over 1.8 billion in debt to England on top of a negative income or 185% of GDP deficit to basically hide it for a year or two longer.
Again, that is fact.
Unionists tell us Northern Ireland is a growing economy and needs the UK.
Now we are back to assumption, quite possibly fictitious assumption.
The souths annual trade with England/britain over the water, is over 1 billion per year in both directions. A major issue if england leave the EU
Unionists will say leaving the UK will disrupt the east west trade, but it doesn’t really stack up as you can see from the souths exports facts in this report, which are not assumptions unlike unionist claims to the contrary.
Tax harmonisation will result in corporate business coming north which will lead to thousands of new medium paid jobs. I dont see that is assumption, no economist worth their salt would risk their reputation to say otherwise. I would put that as fact
As for corporation tax, unionists are at least prepared to admit this is a major advantage and have been trying to accommodate it.
In my own opinion, there isn’t a snowballs chance in hell of Northern Ireland achieving a 12.5% corporation tax rate within the UK. It would be assumption to suggest a timeframe or even whether this would ever bed in sufficiently to deliver within the UK.
But let’s stick with facts. The figures show it took the south over 10 years to get a return on this. Can Northern Ireland really afford to try and play catch-up? I would say, avoid assumption, stick only to the facts, look at the figures and make your own minds up.
This report suggests that merging into an established economy with attractive corporate tax would have much faster return than going it alone. That is not assumption I would also have that down as fact.
A single currency on this island would benefit smaller businesses such as my own which would make it a lot easier to trade throughout the island. Again, this is not assumption, this is fact and multi-currency is a genuine issue we (businesses) have to deal with. A much bigger disadvantage for small to medium businesses than corporates which is the majority of businesses here who would benefit.
I think it is time we took our heads out of our backsides and took this seriously. Imagine a small emigrant Irish culture group in the US have commissioned this report and our own elected representatives have done nothing.
And I mean nothing for how to deal with the economics whether though unification, going it alone or within the UK.
All we have no the table is the tory fiscal plan which from an English perspective is what I would do in their shoes also.
Time is running out for our politicians to come clean on the true extent ot the economic disaster coming down the road. I suspect it will be the unions and public sector employees who will take the lead when the strikes and fightback start. They are the ones who will be taking the hit first.
jessica
Thanks. I did find that too but was unsure if this was the right organisation as there is v little information.
If they did commission the study I would say they would hardly be unbiased as they would clearly be in favour of unification.
That does not invalidate the study, but it is relevant.
When a poll comes out indicating less than favourable figures in favour of unification, Jude and others are quick to point to who commissioned it and their motives, whether it is the BBC or the News Letter or the INM group.
On this study Jude has been remarkably uninterested in who paid for it.
On your other comment I am not sure what you mean by what level I want to discuss it on.
Basically I think the study interesting but of limited value given the number of unknowable assumptions involved. Is that not reasonable?
I’m struggling to remember having condemned a survey because of its source. If I have done, gio, do let me know and I’ll be the first to concede an unfair bias. Of course, this report isn’t a survey – it’s a model which is set up and then argued for. I think it should stand or fall on the basis of its logic, not on its source. Right now I’m beginning to think that Alex Kane was right when he said he thought that, in a referendum, both unionists and nationalists would vote in 99% of cases with their heart, not their head. This report has been greeted enthusiastically by nationalists/republicans, sneered at by unionists. Strong case there, Alex…
“Right now I’m beginning to think that Alex Kane was right when he said he thought that, in a referendum, both unionists and nationalists would vote in 99% of cases with their heart, not their head.”
Jude, in the absence of debate and inclusive serious discussion of all options between all parties on both of these islands, what else have the electorate to base their vote on but their heart if they bother to vote at all.
You have a point, Jessica.
“Basically I think the study interesting but of limited value given the number of unknowable assumptions involved. Is that not reasonable?”
Actually, no it isn’t and I will explain why.
First of all, there is no comparison with polls which are nothing more than a reflection of popular opinion based on information available at the time which is usually biased to begin with.
An economic study such as this, when conducted by people with ample relevant experience and qualifications, cannot be considered biased when based on factual statistics as this has in abundance.
Every economic study to be of any worth to governments or to be used in business planning, must make assumptions when projecting into the future – bar none. That is fact. This report makes it clear what those are and the reader then decides who relevant those assumptions are and reviews them as time goes on to ensure the conditions remain within those parameters or suitable adjustments are made to compensate. That is how every business works. Follow good practice and it really isn’t that difficult to make money.
One of the assumptions for example is that the bank of england doesnt screw up and devalue sterling.
Yes, if the value of sterling drops, the benefits of trade within the EU are skewed, but if that happens, the strength of sterling is the UKs strongest asset and it is the financial sectors strength that allows the south of england to finance the rest of the UK. In those circumstances, it is assumption to assume they would continue to subsidise northern irelands economy and we are facing other issues that would have greater negative impact. So it comes down to risk assessment based on the assumptions and what if scenario business case planning. Again, that is normal good practice and up to the government, not the provider of the report to consider.
But in the light of your comment, what you may want to consider is that northern Irelands whole existence is based on assumption. No one knows the percentage of the deficit here england will be willing to pay in 12 months or what the next hack out of the block grant would be.
Yet, you have no problems with those assumptions it appears.
I therefore feel that the real reason you feel this report has limited value is for purely emotional reasons that it goes against this part of ireland remaining in the UK and you are reverting to traditional unionist form, whether you consider yourself one or not, that you are unable to give reasonable merit and consideration to the prospect that unification could be economically the best option for us.
And that is what frustrates me the most.
Would it not be prudent to consider all options equally?
Jude
Where did I say you condemned anything?
Since the report is based on a series of assumptions, then it is at least worth considering that those assumptions and therefore the conclusions, might be designed to provide the result that the sponsors would be happy with.
But maybe these academics are above such mundane concerns as where their funding will come from.
Well gio, I take my hat off to you – it’s not every day I encounter someone more cynical than myself. What on earth would be the point in anyone commissioning any study, if the results were inevitably be produced to favour the sponsor? I suppose I could dig back and check about whether you said I said that I ….Zzzz.
“Since the report is based on a series of assumptions, then it is at least worth considering that those assumptions and therefore the conclusions, might be designed to provide the result that the sponsors would be happy with.”
Gio, that is not only inaccurate but doesn’t even make sense.
The report is based on reunification only and uses different potential models to cover sufficient options for the reader to base a decision on.
It makes no conclusions on what should actually happen, no economic study does so stop getting your knickers in a twist.
The report has no bias other than it is considering the economics of a situation that you would be biased against.
There would still be a 50 billion deficit over the 8 years so this in itself is not sufficient for all stakeholders to start getting excited about.
As I said, this would have to go hand in hand with an overarching all island economic growth strategy with at least 25 years projections and will certainly require considerable growth in the tourism industry as well as major long term development projects to be invested in to get the biggest return for the people.
That is simply not possible for northern ireland as a stand alone entity.
Where is our independent economic strategy for northern ireland within the UK full stop?
Are you simply hoping that mr beans UK economic report will support simply throwing more money our way?
Or could you simply not care less what the economic future is so long as it is within the union?
Jude
You make an accusation but you can’t be bothered to back it up.
Pointless stuff.
So as long as polls are conducted by reputable companies you will accept them regardless of who commissioned them?
Jessica
I am not a Unionist, so your further criticisms of what you think I think are hard for me to comment on.
I have already said I hope the study is proved accurate but don’t let that stop you.
‘I am not a unionist’? Mmmm. If polls are conducted by reputable companies – yes, of course I’ll accept them. I mightn’t like them, and I might want to know how they conducted their survey, but yes. And I repeat – this wasn’t based on a poll. And yes, sometimes I get too bored to answer every question fired at me. And your point is?
“And yes, sometimes I get too bored to answer every question fired at me. And your point is?”
Especially since gio has ignored my point about the statement he made regarding pubic sector job losses.
No point demanding comment about things we don’t know if we are going to ignore the things we do know.
“I am not a Unionist, so your further criticisms of what you think I think ”
I am not criticising what I think you think gio, I believe you have a very good point regarding the jobs loss in the public sector and I wanted you to follow up on it rather than use it as a reason against unification and just leave it there.
I am happy to discuss how we can pay our way without unification but think it is foolish to leave it off the table altogether for the reason I am very confident there is no viable economic alternative and that it will become very clear over the coming years ahead.
As I said, those public sector jobs are gone anyway, england have demanded it and followed up by no longer paying for them resulting in new debt for northern ireland which we have never had before.
Had we put together an economic growth strategy that would have offset those jobs in a reasonable timeframe rather than stop at natural wastage, then there is a good chance the Tories would have given us a billion pounds to implement it. It would have made economic sense for them to do so.
I see no signals that they will in the future revert to funding high public estate here.
Ryan – I’ve discouraged personal remarks from neill and others – I’d like you too to observe the civilities. You can disagree, even be witty about one another, but don’t just name-call…Grma
but Willie Frazer is nutty Jude
I think we can suggest an absence of grey matter without using the sledge-hammer, Jessica…
Ryan – neill has a point when he says you’re name-calling as much as him. So try to remain civil while disagreeing…
“supported by smart economic policy”
This might be the Achilles heel.
The benefits to the tourist industry if we had the brains to market the troubles would more than triple those projections and benefit the whole island.
Getting our act together over renewable energy and reducing our reliance on Europe for fuel would also help reduce electricity costs for consumers and businesses alike. Just ask Ballymena what they would think about that.
But, rather than discuss these things sensibly, we will focus on which team scores the most goals in Europe, what flags are waved and what roads can be marched down.
The Universities in Canada can give a less biased view. One of the best Uni`s in the world, Magill is in Canada.Neill should have a look around?
I taught summer school in UBC for six successive years and the impression I got was of a highly-rated, research-active institution. But then I don’t know what neill obviously knows about them…
ETH Zürich is an engineering, science, technology, mathematics and management university. It may feature in international rankings as one of the best universities in the world and Dr. Renger Herman van Nieuwkoop might know a thing or two about transportation networks, economic equilibrium and industrial structures but how on earth is that relevant to this part of the world? How could harmonisation of the tax systems across the island possibly encourage more foreign direct investment, reduce trade barriers and cut transport and currency transaction costs? Please, no more discussion on this, we have too many burning issues to deal with at present.
What we really need is a distinguished scholar to develop a marketing strategy in order to promote the aesthetic features of our peace walls as long term tourist attractions. Now that would generate a few pounds, we will have no euro here. Time marches on and we must march with it.
I really hope that this is your satirical wit at play, lolar and not a “serious” take on any future economic strategy for Ireland.
Thank you for your gracious compliment.
An island with one economy makes absolute sense. Its the narrow mindedness of the partitionists that refuse to consider the benefits. And might I add the refusal to bring anything beneficial to the island on which they reside.
So we should have a united Europe then or a united Mexico United States and Canada then ok…
well anything but a reunited Ireland
“So we should have a united Europe then or a united Mexico United States and Canada then ok…”
Is that the best you can do neill?
Ireland is a single country, single nation with a gerrymandered border to accommodate continued foreign occupation that carved a line through villages and caused an economic disaster for the north which we are only now beginning to pay for financially. Economically, the worst has yet to come.
We are not talking about uniting two countries, we are taking reunification of our small island.
Even though the majority of Northern Irish people don’t wish it. We are not occupied by a foreign power the majority of people in Northern Ireland choose to be part of that country.
That’s why I would have a border poll to decide it tomorrow.
What about having one in three years’ time when people have had a chance to think and debate, as was the case in Scotland, neill?
I am glad to hear that neill.
The majority of Northern Ireland do not wish to be governed by England, quite the opposite, the majority here in fact do not want to be ruled by england.
A border poll is the only way to prove this one or the other and I agree with you that it should happen as soon as possible.
I also agree it is in unionisms best interests to have it sooner while you still have a majority and before the financial costs of remaining in the UK are felt in our pockets.
jessica
I am not sure what point about the public sector you wanted me to respond to.
I am in agreement that we are far to reliant on those jobs with something like 30% of our workforce in public sector jobs.
I am not making an argument for the status quo, or the sustainability of Northern Ireland, which is why I find your assumptions that I am a unionist a bit irksome. (If we start trying to second guess people then debate becomes impossible).
All I have been trying to do is address this particular report.
Most of your comments on this thread I am in agreement with, though I am not sure that tourism can really expand in the way you think. However you clearly know more about it than I do so I defer to you on that.
I see from Sluggerotoole someone has checked the commissioning of this report and linked it to friends of Sinn Fein.
That in itself is fine, but a bit of openness in the first place would have been better.
“I see from Sluggerotoole someone has checked the commissioning of this report and linked it to friends of Sinn Fein.
That in itself is fine, but a bit of openness in the first place would have been better.”
What was their opinion of the report itself or did they not bother reading it having linked it to Sinn Fein which by the way I would be pleased about if it is true?
I will tell you why.
This report not only stacks up, but supports ECB step by step guidelines for building economies looking out of recession.
Lets put it another way, If Sinn Fein are elected and choose to implement this report, they will need to move away from the far left socialism and move towards the centre ground political economics. Not really the sounds they have been making to date is it?
It would make them much more attractive to me but not to all of their supporters many of whom espouse more or less communist prattle and reference economic policies from 100 years ago. Cringe
If it is true, and they understand they may have to modernise their ideology, I can see why they might have kept it quiet until they got the facts.
Perhaps wishful thinking on my part though. They will have to speak for themselves on this but it could be divisive.
It would explain their recent change of tact regarding the agreement in stormont though.