“What are you going to do, bleed on me?”
The Belfast Telegraph reports a speech by the Member of [the UK] Parliament Northern Ireland Assembly member International Representative for West Belfast, Gerry Adams – “Campaign for a united Ireland set to go global”. The Irish News has another quote from the speech
“All of this is part of a process,” [Adams] said. “I like to judge it, because it’s convenient to do so, in a 40-year span. “And 40 years in a lifetime is huge but in history it’s only a blink.”
Which would also work for the DUP.. Because it’s all very well imposing a retrospective, and self-serving, narrative onto events but “history has no premeditated design”. Of course the Sinn Féin leader is also “looking forward with confidence..” 2008 having been so, erm, successful.. [Probably best not to look back - Ed]. All of which reminds me more of Monty Python’s Black Knight than anything else..
typo: “where you had $1000 between you”
oilifear
I live in the real world where NI needs £8 billion a year in subvention, can the RoI afford it for the next 40 years?
In any event from my experience selling to the RoI prices are 20-100% more expensive, hence all the shoppers coming north at the moment, so the standard of living is not so much different.
Frustrated Democrat -
I live in the real world where NI needs £8 billion a year in subvention, can the RoI afford it for the next 40 years?
Well, with the way Sterling is headed…
Continued economic and population growth in Ireland (Republic) would make it more affordable. It’s a problem for us (the south) not you (the north).
The tax regime in the south, coupled with IDA, smaller nature of the state – would mean the subvention could be ended quite quickly. Also, much expensive southern public sector work could be outsourced to the north.
There is also the possibility of England ending it. The north’s private sector economy under those circumstances is still unlikely to match the souths. (I don’t think the NI in the UK will match economic growth in the south generally).
If you don’t want a United Ireland, that’s fine. NI would be better off in one (or perhaps independent, or repartitioned), but you have a vote and can vote against it.
Prices are more expensive and the rise in Sterling is not the only cause, they were more expensive before the current crisis. What you want to compare in that case is GDP at purchasing-power parity (PPP):
* Ireland: US$42,780
* UK: US$36,571
(source)
As for the real world, all 32 counties were once in that situation. It is not the way that Northern Ireland has to be.
£8 billion ($12 billion) is less than 5% of the RoI’s €187 billion ($255 billion) GDP. It would be possible to sustain it into the medium term but, if NI were to merge with the RoI, that is not a situation that would be allowed to continue. GB may be satisfied to allow its distant appendage to wither at a negligible price but the RoI could not.
£12 billion ($18 billion) in taxes are raised in NI. €40 billion ($59 billion) are raised in the RoI. Northern Ireland could expect to return 83 deputies to the Oireachtas. RoI currently returns 166. Even taking things as they stand now, with one quarter of all revenue returns and one third of deputies, in the real world, NI would be too great a contributor to a NI-RoI union to allow it to wither and unionists parties could be king-makers not once in a century but every time around.
(For “Oireachtas”, of course, replace with whatever your preferred term is. The proportion of deputies returned is what matters, not the name given to the parliament.)
Guys
We seem to have drifted away from the actual topic into a somewhat pointless, and potentially endless, discussion..
To clarify.
If the economic case was the decisive factor in this debate then Northern Ireland would, potentially, be endlessly changing its territorial position.
Pete – For years when I was growing up Unionists said that 30% or so of nationalists would vote to keep the union for economic reasons. I would imagine it’s a pretty core part of putting an argument for persuading people (not least those nationalists) one way or the other.
Anyway, isn’t it better that we’re debating wooing NI voters one way or another with a more prosperous future, than threatening one and other with empty tribal rhetoric?
Pete, if the topic was Adam’s “campaign” then I think consensus fell pretty quickly on him being a twat and there being little more to say about it.
The substantive issue (a UI) isn’t hardly off topic though. The economic case is hardy the decisive factor today, but it is a reasonable factor for discussion none-the-less so long as we can keep our tempers (is a UI feasible? is it better for NI to stay with the larger economy? or are there benefits for NI to joining with the smaller economy? etc.). Had the economy of Ireland been handled better in the past, we might all still be in the UK today – or 1801 might never have happened … or 1601 for that matter … or heck 1169!
It is, in the end, about the economy, stupid.
Oilifear
“The substantive issue (a UI) isn’t hardly off topic though.”
And I repeat..
Pete – So is sectarian demography the decisive factor? Or where should we productively be focusing our efforts (on both sides)?
I believe if both side put forward positive arguments in favour of their goals, we’ll all be better off. The economy is a fertile ground for this, but if there are other things we should be discussing – I like to research those too..
Don’t repeat, please.
If the only element of economy was the constant appraisal and reappraisal of GDP per capita with whichever had the greater “winning” Northern Ireland there would be some sense to what you say. There is, however, more to economy than that.
Now, I don’t want to repeat myself. So why don’t you read my post of 11:57. In full this time. And with a little less haste.