Friday, November 18, 2005
Hain: desireablity of an island wide economy
Peter Hain talks to Nialll Stanage about the desireability of an all island economy. Scoop of the month, I’d say!
In future decades, it is going to be increasingly difficult to look at the economy of north and south except as a sort of island of Ireland economy. We are deepening north-south cooperation in a number of areas. The Northern Ireland economy, though it is doing better than ever in its history, is not sustainable in the long-term. I don’t want the Northern Ireland economy to be a dependent economy as it is now, with a sort of UK, ‘big brother’ umbrella over it. It needs to be much more self-sufficient, so that’s what we’re trying to do.
But that was only part of what he said. More later.
Mick Fealty @ 11:32 AM
yes, have you now seen that the...yes, wouldnt ye know, the DUP have called for his resignation just because he said the economy wasnt sustainable in the long term! have you ever heard the likes of it? imagine taking great offence to that.
Posted by on Nov 18, 2005 @ 01:17 PM“In future decades, it is going to be increasingly difficult to look at the economy of north and south except as a sort of island of Ireland economy,”
what does this mean in actual practice. It just shows how vacuous this man’s head is and how little he knows about economics or even the business climate north or south.
Business already co-operates fully - its called trade and with the EU it is easier than ever.
The biggest barriers to the kind of all Ireland economy he talks (I assume) about are the fact that we have differing, and most importantly, competitive fiscal regimes and have different currencies - infact we are different countries !
Therefore unless he has plans to make NI a part of the EURO and differentiate NI taxes from the rest of the UK then all this is just rhetoric.
Poor journalism as well because if he had said something like this to Jeremy Paxman he would have been nailed on what it actually meant.
Posted by on Nov 18, 2005 @ 01:26 PMI was curious about Pter’s comments. Could he say things like this publically without Cabinet approval? If he did have such approval is it possible he is kite flying to see how the idea of such movement would go down?
Posted by on Nov 18, 2005 @ 01:27 PM‘different country’ eh? ESB, the Irish power giant has recently set up in Coolkeeragh, Derry. Power sharing? i thought the DUP would have been furious!
Posted by on Nov 18, 2005 @ 01:30 PMI agree. Donegal for example has 17% unemployment compared to 4% in the South as a whole, and border regions of the Six Counties are also worse affected unemployment wise compared to NI as a whole. Closer trade links are needed to combat this. Partition has damaged the economies of these areas. In particular, there is a need to re-open rail-links between North and South which were closed down by the ever-paranoid Lord Craigavon.
Posted by on Nov 18, 2005 @ 01:38 PMHi Brian,
“Partition has damaged the economies”
Agreed. Get the RoI to rejoin the UK and we’ll all be much better off in the long term. “Ourselves alone” attitudes will inevitably return us to the mass emigration of the 50s…
Posted by on Nov 18, 2005 @ 01:47 PMThe subtext could not be clearer. The British want rid.
Posted by on Nov 18, 2005 @ 02:35 PMBrian Boru
“Partition has damaged the economies of these areas.”
Of course the trade boycotts of Northern Ireland companies organised by southern nationalism played no role whatsoever in ripping the southern border counties from their natural economic hinterland nor did a sustained terrorist campaign have any impact either. Its all lord Craigavon’s fault, not.
17% unemployment in Donegal? So its northern isolation from the seat of government has left its needs being ignored? Hmmm.
Posted by on Nov 18, 2005 @ 02:42 PMI remember reading a book a while back on the history of Ireland in the 20th century. In it it describes a meeting of U.S. investors and the U.S. government, around 94-96 (not sure of the exact year), in which they discussed invesment in Ireland. They were counting the whole island as one economic zone. The Unionists at the time were enraged at this and battled hard to have this changed. Of course, this meant that nearly all the investment went South. This was the time of heavy foregin investment in the country and the boom was in full swing. So you have to imagine, how much investment did NI lose out on? Why would their attitude be any different now?
As we can see from certain posts above, some Unionists are still waiting for a slipback into pre-boom economic stagnation. By the way, ‘ourselves alone’ is not the general consensus amoung Southerners. Don’t get SF mixed up with everyone else. It is clear that this is not the ROI’s attitude with how we carry ourselves in Europe and in the higher echolans of the E.U. Keep dreaming though if it makes you feel better.
Posted by on Nov 18, 2005 @ 02:47 PMFair_Deal,
let’s talk about living memory.It was unionists running around with “Boycott Eire goods” in the 1980s. I have never heard a southern party advocate boycotting northern goods.
Today, in 2005, 25% of NI goods are exported south. Some boycott. 2% of the Republic’s goods go north. Do unionists shop in Dunnes Stores?
It isn’t actions from 80 years ago which are stifling development in the border counties, it’s the border itself.
As I wrote on another thread, the Republic has got 100 times more foreign investment in the last 10 years than Northern Ireland.
It may not be isolationist but by its very policies it is leaving itself isolated.
Posted by on Nov 18, 2005 @ 02:58 PMIf NIs economy is unsustainable then so is Scotlands, Wales and Northern England. OK so the figures arent as extreme as NIs with maybe 50% of the population dependent on the public sector but they are still “unsustainable”
(there’s no such thing as not quite as unsustainable).What Hain is saying is that because NIs economy is unsustainable then instead of linking it with the economy of say ... ooohhh I dont know ... a medium sized Europan country (e.g. the UK) or even Europe in general (by adopting a single currency harmonised interest rates etc etc) we should link it with a small sized European country (e.g. ROI). This mdoesn’t really make sense to me.
Posted by on Nov 18, 2005 @ 02:58 PMBB
I agree. Donegal for example has 17% unemployment compared to 4% in the South as a whole
That is false, but unfortunately it is typical of the way you play fast and loose with facts in your posts. In this case you’re comparing two completely different statistics.
If you’re using the 4% as the base, the Donegal figure is 8%.
If you’re using the 17% the national figure is about 9%.
One is the live register - the other is total unemployment.
Posted by on Nov 18, 2005 @ 03:09 PM“17% unemployment in Donegal? So its northern isolation from the seat of government has left its needs being ignored? Hmmm.”
LOL That doesn’t wash considering low unemployment in Cork for example being further away from Dublin than Belfast is.
“Agreed. Get the RoI to rejoin the UK and we’ll all be much better off in the long term. “Ourselves alone” attitudes will inevitably return us to the mass emigration of the 50s… “
LOL
Posted by on Nov 18, 2005 @ 03:29 PMmnob,
<quote>If NIs economy is unsustainable then so is Scotlands, Wales and Northern England. OK so the figures arent as extreme as NIs with maybe 50% of the population dependent on the public sector but they are still “unsustainable”
(there’s no such thing as not quite as unsustainable).</quote>Thats hardly a valid point - For a start Scotland, Wales and N. England all have far larger populations and all have a land connection with each other. In the North one of our largest trading partners (if not our largest) shares the same island and we have civil servants / politicians who can’t even grasp the economic sense behind a united ireland economically. I work for a fairly large local retailer - when we wanted to expand outside NI we looked south, not to england or scotland but dublin, simply because logistically and for management reasons its easier to drive down the road than get a plane or boat. That said like so many cross border retailers our expansion south is shackled by red tape and additional costs that make running a company in both jurisdictions very expensive. The only solution for this is for our politicians to take positive action and help make it easier for northern companies to do business in the south - this will create more local wealth and help lessen our dependance on the public sector.
Regarding Peter Hain he’s only saying what a lot of business’ are thinkin - Unionists can try and prevent us from having cross border relationships all they like but they also have bills to pay and ecomonics will eventually dictate that unification makes sense.Posted by on Nov 18, 2005 @ 05:01 PMIf NIs economy is unsustainable then so is Scotlands, Wales and Northern England.
That’s true up to a point, but at least Scotland and Wales have functioning devolved governments, which are beginning to show signs of understanding the problem.
I suspect that Gordon Brown’s ambitions will dictate a shift in public spending in favour of England. (Notice his photo-op for England’s World Cup bid today.)
You could argue that Hain was speaking to his audience, but his actions do sugggest he has a brief to squeeze the subvention as much as possible.Posted by on Nov 18, 2005 @ 05:02 PMHi Brian,
“LOL”
Glad your laughing. However, an economy built on foreign investment is very susceptible to relocation to lower cost bases or home markets. The RoI’s GNP is about 25% down on the GDP figure.
I don’t want to sound like a complete killjoy so enjoy the good times. But remember economics is cyclic, so prepare for the bad…
Posted by on Nov 18, 2005 @ 05:11 PMGeorge
1. Economic damage can last a long time especially those areas on the economic periphery. The border need not have become a barrier to trade but the economic boycotts adopted by the south helped make it so.
2. This is not the only example of southern polticial attitudes having a destruction approach to economic well being. It was the reckless issuing of fishing licences by southern authorities that almost destroyed Lough Foyle as a fishery. This mismanagement led to the establishment of the Foyle Fisheries Commission and the fishery took years to recover.
3. Also the economic isolationist policies pursued by southern governments especially in the 1930’s contributed to severing the economic relationship with Northern Ireland as well as the rest of the world. This contributed to economic problems well into the 1950’s.
4. The economic damage the RoI suffered in WWII as a partial consequence of its neutrality and its subsequent exclusion from post-war aid.
5. There were calls for boycotts of British goods in 1969.
6. Where in my comments did I object to trade with the RoI? I simply pointed out that the deterioriation in the economic relationship was due to the choices of the RoI as much if not more than the actions of the NI government.
7. The terrorist campaign was within living memory hardly an investment incentive.Posted by on Nov 18, 2005 @ 05:23 PMFair_Deal, do you accept that Craigavon closing down all the railways to the South except Belfast-Dublin contributed to the problem, and do you support re-opening them.
Posted by on Nov 18, 2005 @ 07:13 PMBB
The closure of the railways is probably like chicken and egg - how much did the boycotts and economic isolationism cause a decline in traffic that made them unviable or the closure lead to a decline? The closures probably made a deteriorated situation worse and hampered the ease with which ties could be restored.
There is a significant question mark over the economic viability of the existing rail network in Northern Ireland so I would need some convincing on the value of extending the existing network. However I am personally sympathetic to improving the road infrastruture in the West of NI and with the Border counties. The condition of the road network in both is poor and is the basic building block of any modern economy.
Posted by on Nov 18, 2005 @ 10:56 PMStart of the exit strategy
Posted by on Nov 18, 2005 @ 11:13 PMCongal,
you are a bit behind the times. Understandable considering the pace of change in Ireland. The Atlas GNI for 2004 (UK’s favoured method which strips out the foreign expatriation in GDP figures) shows Ireland now ahead of the UK at number 12 in the world at $34,280 per capita. UK is at 13 with $33,940. Northern Ireland is at 79% of UK GNI (static since 1997) while the gap between Ireland and the UK is predicted to continue to grow at least until 2020.I don’t want to sound like a complete killjoy but the times are only going to get worse for Northern Ireland. The Republic will definitely chug along until 2007. After that, we’ll see but at current rates it will take Northern Ireland at least a thousand years to catch up.
Fair_Deal,
the only things on your list I remember are (as a child) the fishing licence issue and (as an adult) the end of the terror campaign. The majority of Irish people are younger than me. 1969 is not in living memory for the majority of Irish people. The majority of Irish people weren’t on this earth. The majority of Irish people never heard of the Specials (the band that is). Shocking but true.I spoke of investment in the last decade in the quote I gave. I fully accept the “Troubles” stifled growth but, more importantly, the actions of all parties in NI in the last decade have stifled growth.
There was a glorious opportunity to be grasped, “the age of the Irish” when we would get “in our stride” as President McAleese said in 1997. She was right. But instead of taking advantage, people like Trimble threw out the insults and Paisley, to this day, refuses to shake the Taoiseach’s hand.
That goes down well with investors as evidenced by nobody investing in Northern Ireland. At least Paisley’s wising up slightly and was down today being a little less abusive and a little less superior.
As I said, the majority of southerners have no experience of calls to boycott northern goods. As a child I was on the £5 (punt) bus to Belfast to go to Argos when we didn’t have it. Toasters for the price of a pint.
As a teenager up for the Royal Dutch at less than 30p a can. Some boycott. That’s my generation’s “southern” Irish experience of Northern Ireland - economically that is.
When you talk of the 1930s you talk as if the Republic was the place with the economic might, squeezing the poor north. Jaysus, we couldn’t butter a sandwich while over the border they weren’t only growing the wheat, they were baking the bread. Give me a break.
Everyone south of the border was cut adrift (and vice versa but it wasn’t one-sided) and northern unionists wallowed in their economic superiority. Some wallow to this day.
Northern Ireland didn’t need us and saw no profit in us but now it does. The problem is that nobody has told the unionist electorate yet. The business community know it only too well and are happily working away.
Today, the Republic doesn’t need Northern Ireland but business is business.
Posted by on Nov 19, 2005 @ 12:17 AMVery good post, George.
We are entering an age when I truly believe economic forces- in the form of a new southern-inspired entrepreneurial culture, will take up the traditional objective of Irish nationalism, albeit unconsciously.
In terms of the public sector, anyone truly interested in seeing counties Donegal, Tyrone and Derry developed will spearhead a campaign for strategic regional transport planning transcending the border- a direct motorway to Dublin should be the main goal. Hospital services will likely follow - the Cancer treatment initiative announced this week will be only the beginning.
Posted by on Nov 19, 2005 @ 01:02 AMI don’t remember ever being called on by our politicians to boycott northern goods. The Belfast boycott was in the War of Independence 1919-21, so I think you are stuck in a timewarp there , Fair_Deal.
Posted by on Nov 19, 2005 @ 10:45 AMI agree with Henry when he says that the British establishment wants rid of us. I can’t help suspecting that the plan for eventual disengagement is already in action.
Posted by on Nov 19, 2005 @ 03:15 PMOh please - ‘We are entering an age when I truly believe economic forces- in the form of a new southern-inspired entrepreneurial culture, will take up the traditional objective of Irish nationalism, albeit unconsciously’. Why is that so many nationalists are prone to fantasy when it comes to matters economic?
I suppose the economic determinism/inevitability crap simply went too deep when everyone was a lip-service Marxist, and now that everyone mouths Tiger platitudes they can equally easily say, exactly the opposite fiscal philosophy to the one we used to believe in (capitalism, as compared to Socialism cum Catholic social doctrine) will *still* - would you credit it? - lead to the end result we have always wanted.
Seriously though, boys and girls, if a welathir north didn’t lead to the mass in the south wanting to rejoin the UK, why do you imagine a ‘wealthier south’ (by some measurements only, and certainly not for the welfare classes!) will produce a tipping point amongst the northern mob? The subtext here’s not too hard to spot: southern nationalists were far too high-minded ever to be sawyed in the first 80 years after partitition by filthy lucre, but northern jaffas . . . well obviously one whiff of a Euro and they’ll roll on their back and stop pretending to be British. Dream on children.
Posted by on Nov 19, 2005 @ 04:19 PM
