by Kevin Meagher
I don’t doubt that convincing unionists about either the merits of Irish unity or acclimatising them to the reality of it will prove arduous. But we should not fall into the trap of assuming the actual business of uniting the island of Ireland is difficult, because it really isn’t.
It involves dealing with two relatively small entities with a high degree of complimentary infrastructure and similar public services. There will be Irish, British American and European money put on the table to help with the transition. And Northern Ireland is such a small place! Equivalent to the size of Kent and just two-thirds the population of Greater Manchester.
Yet our public debate has a terrible habit of scaling-up the place, often assuming it’s large and unwieldy. East Germany is sometimes used as a comparison. At 19 million, its population was literally ten times bigger than Northern Ireland’s (1.9 million).
All of which, leads me to my point.
I’m not a fan of the phrase ‘New Ireland.’ I think it’s a loose, rhetorical term often used by those calling for constitutional change. I get the purpose; it sounds visionary and conveys the impression that Northern Ireland isn’t an afterthought. That two equal entities are being scrapped to create something new and fresh.
But that isn’t the case, is it? In an administrative sense, six is being bolted on to twenty-six. I’m not suggesting there shouldn’t be parity of esteem, it’s just that one entity is much larger and demonstrably more successful than the other. Without wishing to sound disobliging, the north is joining a winning team. A transfer from the lower divisions to the Premier League.
Granted, as I’ve written elsewhere, the Northern Irish influence over this 32-county state might see a socialised healthcare model rolled-out across the whole island and perhaps a British model of devolution to key Irish cities.
Yet it’s surely uncontroversial to point out Northern Ireland doesn’t really work at any level – as a society, economy or political unit. It’s a sour, brittle, failing place – for perfectly understandable historical reasons – and however bad it currently is, it’s still a massive improvement over what it was. Equally, however, it isn’t going to get any better.
The south isn’t perfect, let me readily concede. But it is, objectively, a prosperous, modern, liberal state with an agile economy that is well-positioned to continue benefitting from developments in the modern, global economy.
The problems it has are, if you like, ‘good’ problems. Eminently fixable. An overheating economy and lax immigration rules that have generated a quite avoidable housing market crisis – which is easily sorted with supply side reforms from its gargantuan fiscal surplus.
But in the same breath Ireland’s the best educated country in the world and one of the most consistently democratic, with strong civic institutions, sound economic fundamentals and a consistently high quality of life.
In which sense, unification is a process of reform, not revolution. The failing bit is joining the successful bit. That’s why I have a problem with the need to frame the objective as somehow requiring a ‘new’ Ireland. It presupposes that the past was a complete failure. The problem here is that the southern Irish think they’ve built a pretty successful place. They might regard it as impertinent for northern campaigners to tell them otherwise.
I also think the term alarms southerners who assume a greater level of change – or perhaps disruption – is coming their way than would actually be the case. I think it makes the task of unification seem bigger, harder and more costly – and that’s not helpful.
David McWilliams had an interesting piece in the Irish Times the other day. He was chiding Sinn Fein’s approach to economic issues. ‘Anti-capitalist, class-war, Marxist rhetoric might work in the more stagnant, public sector subsidy-dominated North, but doesn’t gain much purchase in the more dynamic, open and commercially minded Republic.’
He overstates his case, but what is certainly true is the need to reassure rather than to challenge voters. Reassuring southern types that they won’t be paying loads more in tax for this act of national renewal. And reassurance for unionists that their material lot will be improved by being part of one of the most dynamic economies in the world, as well as safeguarding their individual liberties.
Ultimately, unity in and of itself will not turn out to be as great as its supporters imagine, nor as bad as its detractors assume. So, emphasising the predictability of this new arrangement – that it’s an organic development – strikes me as a better approach than suggesting it’s about razing everything to the ground and starting again.
by Kevin Meagher
I don’t doubt that convincing unionists about either the merits of Irish unity or acclimatising them to the reality of it will prove arduous. But we should not fall into the trap of assuming the actual business of uniting the island of Ireland is difficult, because it really isn’t.
It involves dealing with two relatively small entities with a high degree of complimentary infrastructure and similar public services. There will be Irish, British American and European money put on the table to help with the transition. And Northern Ireland is such a small place! Equivalent to the size of Kent and just two-thirds the population of Greater Manchester.
Yet our public debate has a terrible habit of scaling-up the place, often assuming it’s large and unwieldy. East Germany is sometimes used as a comparison. At 19 million, its population was literally ten times bigger than Northern Ireland’s (1.9 million).
All of which, leads me to my point.
I’m not a fan of the phrase ‘New Ireland.’ I think it’s a loose, rhetorical term often used by those calling for constitutional change. I get the purpose; it sounds visionary and conveys the impression that Northern Ireland isn’t an afterthought. That two equal entities are being scrapped to create something new and fresh.
But that isn’t the case, is it? In an administrative sense, six is being bolted on to twenty-six. I’m not suggesting there shouldn’t be parity of esteem, it’s just that one entity is much larger and demonstrably more successful than the other. Without wishing to sound disobliging, the north is joining a winning team. A transfer from the lower divisions to the Premier League.
Granted, as I’ve written elsewhere, the Northern Irish influence over this 32-county state might see a socialised healthcare model rolled-out across the whole island and perhaps a British model of devolution to key Irish cities.
Yet it’s surely uncontroversial to point out Northern Ireland doesn’t really work at any level – as a society, economy or political unit. It’s a sour, brittle, failing place – for perfectly understandable historical reasons – and however bad it currently is, it’s still a massive improvement over what it was. Equally, however, it isn’t going to get any better.
The south isn’t perfect, let me readily concede. But it is, objectively, a prosperous, modern, liberal state with an agile economy that is well-positioned to continue benefitting from developments in the modern, global economy.
The problems it has are, if you like, ‘good’ problems. Eminently fixable. An overheating economy and lax immigration rules that have generated a quite avoidable housing market crisis – which is easily sorted with supply side reforms from its gargantuan fiscal surplus.
But in the same breath Ireland’s the best educated country in the world and one of the most consistently democratic, with strong civic institutions, sound economic fundamentals and a consistently high quality of life.
In which sense, unification is a process of reform, not revolution. The failing bit is joining the successful bit. That’s why I have a problem with the need to frame the objective as somehow requiring a ‘new’ Ireland. It presupposes that the past was a complete failure. The problem here is that the southern Irish think they’ve built a pretty successful place. They might regard it as impertinent for northern campaigners to tell them otherwise.
I also think the term alarms southerners who assume a greater level of change – or perhaps disruption – is coming their way than would actually be the case. I think it makes the task of unification seem bigger, harder and more costly – and that’s not helpful.
David McWilliams had an interesting piece in the Irish Times the other day. He was chiding Sinn Fein’s approach to economic issues. ‘Anti-capitalist, class-war, Marxist rhetoric might work in the more stagnant, public sector subsidy-dominated North, but doesn’t gain much purchase in the more dynamic, open and commercially minded Republic.’
He overstates his case, but what is certainly true is the need to reassure rather than to challenge voters. Reassuring southern types that they won’t be paying loads more in tax for this act of national renewal. And reassurance for unionists that their material lot will be improved by being part of one of the most dynamic economies in the world, as well as safeguarding their individual liberties.
Ultimately, unity in and of itself will not turn out to be as great as its supporters imagine, nor as bad as its detractors assume. So, emphasising the predictability of this new arrangement – that it’s an organic development – strikes me as a better approach than suggesting it’s about razing everything to the ground and starting again.