Monday, May 12, 2008
Breaking down the border
In the aftermath of last week’s Investment Conference, Tom McGurk’s been examining just what the North has to offer potential investors and taking a longer look at how the new political and economic realities are likely to impact on traditional unionist attitudes to the border.
Chris Donnelly @ 08:34 PM
Just a bit of tummy trouble, Qubol, but nothing like the bile that poor Billy was unleashing ;)
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 10:12 AMSteve, I’ve used ‘pan-’ as a collective form for those groupings linked to one or other of our constitutional aspirations. Sometimes they combine against the ‘other’; sometimes they fall out amongst themselves; sometimes they even manage to con some of the ‘other’ to join them. I’m sure I don’t need to join up the dots ...
If you can spot any nuance in Billy’s utterings that I might have missed perhaps you could point it out.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 10:20 AMSlug
Your point is like a footballer saying: “It doesn’t matter whether I play for Chelsea or Chimney Corner reserves, it’s all the same game.” It’s true, but meaningless. Context matters. The world economy is football, but the “economic unit” is your team. Presently, we’re cleaning the boots at a big club but we’ll never play. Not even one Carling Cup appearance, as a substitute. The manager has made it clear he doesn’t even want to hear our name mentioned and, though we have an open-ended contract and he can’t kick us out, he wants us to leave at the first opportunity. Meanwhile another club, a mid-table outfit, wants to sign us and wants us to play an integral role. What do we do?
The island is the “economic unit” insofar as the economic interests of this island are broadly uniform, and substantially differ from the economic interests beyond this island (however much unionist ideologues will pretend that there is some sort of archipelagic common interest). McGurk’s point is that, if you take two neighbouring businesses in Monaghan and Armagh, the one in Monaghan – operating under an Irish government – has an huge advantage over the one in Armagh, ruled from London. His point, as far as it goes, is unanswerable.
You’re right that many local businesses have competitors worldwide. This is my point: wouldn’t, say, Wrightbus, be able to compete more effectively if “their” government was more responsive to their needs? Wrightbus is of little significance in a UK context, but would be a big deal in an all-Ireland context. There’s a lot of fuss made about Ireland’s 12.5% corporation tax versus the UK’s 28%, but the more fundamental question is, wouldn’t the local business sector like to actually matter when “their” government is setting rates of taxation?
Political sovereignty that has given RoI the ability to look to its own interests , to set its own economic policies which, in turn, have allowed the Republic to punch well above its weight in the global marketplace. It’s the lack of independence that prevents NI from doing likewise. The results of this divergence are plain for all to see.
“And as for fiscal policy...Ireland’s successful company tax policy is arguably a sign that the “economic unit” for setting company tax should be at EU level, otherwise we get a race to the bottom in company tax rates as capital moves from one base to next.”
But that hasn’t been the way it has worked. There are so many other variables. Ireland offers a young, educated, highly-skilled, English-speaking workforce inside the EU, an effective civil service, low rates of crime, low levels of corruption (don’t laugh! Transparency International says Ireland is 17th least corrupt country – not outstanding, but ahead of Japan, France, USA, Belgium etc), enlightened government economic policy, low levels of national debt, high levels of entrepreneurship, flexible government and, in national sovereignty, the ability to take hard decisions tailored to local needs. Other countries might be able to match Ireland’s low rates of taxation, but few can match the overall package.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 10:35 AM“...self-imposed apartheid”
Ah, this old canard.
Canard? Would that be the fancy name the PRM gives to those in dark glasses and berets who do that duck-waddling perambulation at paramilitary funerals, Billy?
Cardinal Brady has identified himself with this expression of apartheid even though he hasn’t given any examples of how it took place at the time of the formation of the two states:
“After partition Northern Nationalists kept a respectful distance from the State
and became ‘a society within a society’. The Catholic Church was the key institution
in integrating the community and clerical leadership was important. There was an
intertwining of Catholicism, Irish culture and political nationalism.”If the Catholic Church here had followed the example of southern Presbyterians perhaps it might have made a difference. We’ll never know.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 10:41 AM“Ireland’s low rates of taxation”
Billy, those might disappear fairly rapidly after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty ...
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 10:44 AMNevin,
“those might disappear fairly rapidly after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty ...Ireland has a perpetual veto on such tax matters, even after the Lisbon Treaty, so are you saying that the Irish State will vote to remove this veto? I don’t think so.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 10:54 AMGeorge, if/when the EU goes for further harmonisation of its powers the Irish veto will IMO have all the potency of that first Nice Treaty vote.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 11:00 AMNevin
“No, Billy, you want to ignore context and to dole out a heavily jaundiced and poisonous perspective.”
No Nevin, I never ignore context. However, I do make judgements on the degree of relevance a particular area of context. My judgement is that Articles 2&3;, Ne Temere, boycotts etc were of little or no relevance to the reasons why nationalists remained alienated from the state of NI, even fifty years later. (Indeed even 87 years later.)
Our debate began with your observation that: “pan-Nationalism wasn’t much troubled by economic arguments in earlier times so I doubt if pan-Unionism would be so troubled now.”
My argument was that since “pan-nationalism” (sic) never got a taste of NI’s former economic advantage, “pan-nationalism” had no incentive to let itself be seduced by unionism. NI’s former economic advantage gave unionists a half-century window in which they might have made happy citizens out of a big chunk of the nationalist community, but they failed to do so. Believe it or not, nationalist opinion of the northern state was chiefly influenced by the experiences of nationalists within the northern state. The things you pointed to are simply not relevant to why this was the case – they are nothing more than whataboutery.
My point is that a future all-island state will have a similar opportunity to make happy citizens out of a big chunk of the current unionist community. I would not expect an all-Ireland government to mistreat its largest minority, as the unionist junta 1921-72 did.
“Billy’s casual dismissal of notions of pan-Unionism and pan-Nationalism leaves little scope for nuance.”
Steve beat me to it. This makes no sense. You want to lump everyone in together, using a phrase that has its origins in loyalism’s genocidal “All Taigs Are Targets” philosophy (sic), yet you claim that it’s ME who leaves little scope for nuance? Are you on drugs or what?
“It was my privilege to work with very decent folks from a wide range of backgrounds over many years and I wouldn’t like to lump them in with the likes of Martin McGuinness and Jackie McDonald.”
Er, sorry, but that’s exactly what you were doing, and what I rejected. Gordon Wilson and Johnny Adair? Fellow “pan-unionists”. Dessie O’Hare and, I dunno, Paddy Kielty? “Pan-nationalists”.
As for your ad hominem attacks, they reflect rather badly on you, as others have pointed out. Very reactionary. I wonder what could have caused these spasmodic reactions in you?
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 11:04 AMSRR
“Let me be quite clear about this. Under no circumstances whatsoever am I prepared to find myself in a country where the likes of Tom McGurk can claim to represent majority opinion on my indentity. Wars have been fought over less - and indeed, Mr McGurk’s newspaper has tacitly supported the protagonists in at least one of them.”
You have one vote, same as anyone else. You have the same democratic, civil and legal rights as any other citizen, and will continue to have regardless of the constitutional position. No more and no less. It you were to attempt to use violence to usurp the democratic, civil and legal rights of your fellow citizens, you would rightly find yourself in prison.
Furthermore, you do not and will never have the right, either in the UK, the Republic of Ireland or some future all-island state, to libel any person.
Incidentally, I’d be interested to hear about the wars which started over a newspaper column, or over the political opinions of a rugby pundit.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 11:09 AMNevin, the sefl-impossed apartheid line is plainly ridiculous and saying so is far from unbalanced. Unionism has failed and in the main through their own doing.
We have 2 clear choices IMO the main stumbling block to the logical re-unification of Ireland is Unionist pride. So the question is, should we compromise our own future so as not to hurt Unionist feeling?Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 11:11 AMNevin,
if/when the EU goes for further harmonisation of its powers the Irish veto will IMO have all the potency of that first Nice Treaty vote.
And on what information do you base this opinion on?Is it an informed or an uninformed opinion?
What new powers within the Lisbon Treaty will be used to bring about such a conclusion?
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 11:27 AMQubol, Cardinal Brady seems a fairly reasonable man and he seems to have no qualms about identifying himself with that definition of self-imposed apartheid.
Why would a Nationalist ‘solution’ resolve a “Unionist-Nationalist” problem?
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 11:27 AMnevin
Cardinal Brady has identified himself with this expression of apartheid even though he hasn’t given any examples of how it took place at the time of the formation of the two states:
“After partition Northern Nationalists kept a respectful distance from the State
and became ‘a society within a society’. The Catholic Church was the key institution
in integrating the community and clerical leadership was important. There was an
intertwining of Catholicism, Irish culture and political nationalism.”If the Catholic Church here had followed the example of southern Presbyterians perhaps it might have made a difference. We’ll never know.
I told you last time, Nevin. It wasn’t Cardinal Hume. It was Cardinal Brady, and he was quoting:
http://www.catholiccommunications.ie/pressrel/archbishopseanbrady-london-5thmay2004.html
Some further context:
In the midst of such discrimination and a deep sense of alienation from the
Northern State, the structures of education, health, parish and community
provided by the Catholic Church, made it a very natural alternative source of
political and cultural identity for Northern Nationalists. As one commentator
explains:After partition Northern Nationalists kept a respectful distance from the State
and became ‘a society within a society’. The Catholic Church was the key institution
in integrating the community and clerical leadership was important. There was an
intertwining of Catholicism, Irish culture and political nationalism.This sense of collective self-sufficiency and alienation from the Protestant,
Unionist entity called Northern Ireland, was further compounded by the Catholic
experience of the Orange Order, actively promoted at that time by many Protestant
clergy and politicians. Defined and motivated by its sacred oath to ‘strenuously
oppose the fatal errors of Rome’ and to uphold ‘a Protestant State for a Protestant
People’, the Orange Order had become a hugely powerful and unifying force within
the otherwise disparate elements of Protestantism and Unionism.
I told you last time, you are wilfully misrepresenting what he said.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 11:28 AMMore of a gut feeling, George. It just seems like a logical progression to a United States of Europe and Ireland is a small nut in that process. Perhaps I should say two nuts as Ireland the state contains two EU regions.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 11:32 AMNevin
“Canard? Would that be the fancy name the PRM gives to those in dark glasses and berets who do that duck-waddling perambulation at paramilitary funerals, Billy?”
What on earth does this have to do with the issue at hand? PRM - founded 1970. What of the previous half-century of alienation?
“Cardinal Brady has identified himself with this expression of apartheid even though he hasn’t given any examples of how it took place at the time of the formation of the two states:”
Nice use of the word “apartheid” there. It’s a bit like saying that blacks in South Africa were every bit as much part of the apartheid system as whites - factually correct but so breathtakingly dishonest as to be both technically true and a lie at the same time.
“If the Catholic Church here had followed the example of southern Presbyterians perhaps it might have made a difference. We’ll never know.”
I would have said it was far more incumbent on the state to demonstrate that it would have room for Catholics as well as Protestants, that it could cherish the Irish as well as the British-Irish. Perhaps had the state done so, it might have made a difference. We’ll never know. The relationship between southern Presbyterians and their new state is irrelevant to the issue of the relationship between northern Catholics and their relationship to their new state.
I would also point out that the Catholic Church was tentatively accepting of partition in 1921 - the hierarchy’s principal concern was that they would protect their interests re. the education system, and once reassured, they tacitly accepted partition. Furthermore, the Irish Party held a northern conference in Belfast and, swayed by the eloquence of Wee Joe Devlin, by a slim majority voted to accept temporary partition. This is not a misprint - a gathering of people who would become “northern nationalists” voted to accept partition.
Clearly there were foundations here on which the new unionist state could have built. I believe that at least the Catholic Church and lay establishment were there to be corrupted by the power and patronage of the new state. The working men of west Belfast might have had different political views if they’d had jobs in the shipyard. Ambitious, educated young Catholics might have been less embittered if they’d been able to get cushy jobs with the civil service or juicy public sector works contracts, instead of having to watch often less qualified Orangemen get them.
Unionism had a chance but blew it. There’s no reason to suspect that an all-Ireland government would be so stupid as to make the same mistake.
“Billy, those might disappear fairly rapidly after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty...”
If they do, it will be as a result of a decision taken by Ireland’s freely-elected parliament, and any Irish government introducing such legislation would have to convince the electorate that it was in the interest of Irish people to do so. That’s democracy. As George has already pointed out, Ireland will retain its tax veto - a veto it has, and retains, because of political independence.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 11:33 AMNevin
“Cardinal Brady seems a fairly reasonable man and he seems to have no qualms about identifying himself with that definition of self-imposed apartheid.”
One: he doesn’t use the word “apartheid”. (Hugely important.
Two: what he was describing was not “self-imposed” but rather a reaction to encountering a hostile state.
You are being highly dishonest Nevin. Highly dishonest.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 11:37 AM“My point is that a future all-island state will have a similar opportunity to make happy citizens out of a big chunk of the current unionist community. I would not expect an all-Ireland government to mistreat its largest minority, as the unionist junta 1921-72 did.”
I suppose time will tell for this - Unionists obviously suspect very differently than Billy - though hopefully I will not find out either way in my own lifetime - and it’s looking good so far.
As for the only impediment to a UI being Unionist pride as being touted by Qubol - this just shows for me the true gulf between one communities understanding of the other....Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 11:40 AMNevin
“Why would a Nationalist ‘solution’ resolve a “Unionist-Nationalist” problem?”
It’s a bit like the attitude of the northern counties when the GAA removed Rule 21 (banning security forces). Of the northern counties, only Down voted to remove the rule. They all knew it would be removed, there was an overwhelming majority in the country at large, but the northern counties couldn’t bring themselves to vote for it. They knew it was one, last parting shot, nothing more. When the rule was removed, they did not protest. Quietly, and in a way they wouldn’t readily admit, the vast majority of northern Gaels I have spoken to were glad and relieved to see it go. They had been relieved of an historic burden that they might never have been able to put down themselves.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 11:45 AMKensei, why do you mention Cardinal Hume?
How am I misrepresenting Brady when the intertwining predated the formation of both states?
Moloney’s book on the IRA paints a picture of Alex Reid and his Redemptorist colleagues devising a ‘Brits out’ stepping stones strategy aided and abetted by the global influence of the Catholic Church. It seems the price of that strategy locally was the transfer of the ‘control’ of the ‘society within a society’ to the PRM.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 11:46 AMNevin for someone who has demonstrated a real eye for detail on these forums I can only conclude that your presentation of what the Cardinal said is not a simple mis-understanding but as Billy and Kensei have pointed out - utterly dishonest. Not that it will bother you too much but I’ve lost a lot of respect for your comments here.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 11:52 AM“It’s a bit like ..”
Billy, I don’t think the comparison stands up. Your example deals with a little local difficulty within the ‘pan-Nationalist’ family.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 11:53 AMQubol, I described the Cardinal as a reasonable man. I didn’t get all steamed up about some of the important detail that he left out; I presume he’s not an historian.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 12:00 PMBilly, I am mystified as to why you consider it libellous to point out that Mr McGurk’s ex-wife married an Ulster Prod. This is a fact and common knowledge - the former Mrs McGurk and her new husband are a well-known media couple in Dublin.
As McGurk uses his column to spew out insults against Ulster Prods week after week it is only fair to ask if there is some personal motivation for his attitude. After all, as you say, he is only a rugby pundit.Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 12:10 PMNevin
“I don’t think the comparison stands up. Your example deals with a little local difficulty within the ‘pan-Nationalist’ family.”
My point is that human beings are complex creatures, subject to emotions that might be contradictory and unpredictable. Sometimes people don’t want what’s good for them. Sometimes people just can’t bring themselves to put down an emotional burden, but are actually rather glad when someone else does it for them. (It’s like in that episode of Cheers where Carla says that many years ago she swore to her estranged father that she would only ever return to his house if she was dragged kicking and screaming - so she asks Sam to carry her, so she can kick and scream all the way.)
Unionists are human beings. Nationalists are human beings. We’re both subject to these crazy human emotions.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 12:14 PMSRR
I’ll email a reply to you. I don’t want to drag up the details of your previous post as I don’t want to create any legal difficulties for Mick. It’s Mick and Slugger that could be sued for what you write, so it’d be a good idea if you showed a little more circumspection. If you want to be cavalier, set up your own blog.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 12:18 PM
