Monday, February 19, 2007
The economic cost..
In Saturday’s Irish Times, former Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald brought back into focus an all-too-often neglected aspect of the relative economic performance between north and south.. the Provisional IRA’s activity. As he points out, it’s a topic he has covered at several points over the past 35 years [subs req]
“in the year 1953, I found that in that year Northern Ireland’s output per head was 27 per cent higher than ours. However, when I next wrote on this subject (Towards A New Ireland 1972), I found that our economic growth in the 1960s had narrowed this gap to about 18 per cent. Returning to this subject in 2005, I was frankly astonished to find that during the intervening decades this gap in economic performance had not merely been bridged, but had actually been reversed! Our output per head was now 21 per cent higher than that of Northern Ireland.”
He acknowledges aspects of the make-up of the industrial landscape in the north which have contributed to the changing economics during that time, such as the larger textile and clothing industries than the Republic, and the rapidly disappearing shipbuilding and associated heavy engineering sector..
Even if all other things had been equal, this would have left Northern Ireland at some disadvantage vis-a-vis the Republic during the industrial modernisation process of the late 20th century.
But that..
The additional factor that has inhibited Northern Ireland from catching up with Britain and achieving a level of output per head equal to that now enjoyed by the Republic was of course the campaign of violence and destruction waged over several decades by the IRA.
This had the effect of hugely discouraging investment in Northern Ireland. But for this factor, its economy would have been boosted at least sufficiently for it to have held its own vis-a-vis the Republic in terms of output per head - even if its lack of freedom to match our corporate tax regime would inevitably have held its growth rate below that of our State.
The scale of the divergence between the Northern and Southern economies created by the IRA campaign now poses what may prove to be an unbridgeable economic gulf between the two parts of our island. Why?
Simply because if Northern Ireland were now to move from the United Kingdom to an all-Ireland state, in order to maintain the living standards of its people we would need to find at least €6 billion to substitute for current British transfers to the North.
And that would require an increase of something like 12 per cent in our present level of taxation, which I greatly doubt our electorate would support.
Short of such a willingness on our part, there would be very few Northern nationalists, let alone unionists, who would be prepared to accept a reduction of something like one-fifth in their living standards.
As someone who has always thought that the division of the island in 1920 was a huge mistake, damaging in the long run to both North and South, I have to say that I deeply resent the damage thus done by the IRA in creating a major fresh obstacle to the prospect of eventual Irish unity.
Pete Baker @ 12:54 AM
In the early 1970s there was a non-violent program to redress the injustices in the North. Then came the advocates of violence who caused thousands of deaths, countless injuries and lowered your economic performance by 15-20%. Some of those advocates are now republican unionists. Those advocates have much to answer for. Something for some of you to think about.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 02:52 AMHow blinkered of Fitzgerald to mention only one of the parties to the conflict. It was unionist rule the reaction to the Civil Rights Movement that caused the conflict and it was the British belief in a military victory that prolonged it.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 07:44 AMYou beat me to it Henry.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 07:52 AMabucs
Ye have to be up early. But there is more. The main reason the gap has increased is because of the spectacular growth in the south which brought that economy not just past the north’s but past every other European economy.
Is he claiming that we would be in a better position to unite the country if that growth had not happened? What rot.
And let’s not forget that the Irish economy took off wen the policies of high taxation were reversed following Fitzgerald’s departure from government in 1987.
If the right policies, low tax are followed in the north now, and the British will have to stop blocking them, the gap will reduce and then disappear according to my calculations by early 2016.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 08:24 AMNew Yorker I’m thinking what the feck is a republican unionist?
I recall the doubtlessly apocryphal tale of how Garret was stuck in Moscow airport in the 70’s and passed the time by reading the schedule of flights and thereby calculated the size of Aeroflot’s commercial fleet - an impressive intellectual feat, practically useless.
We hardly need an economist of Garret’s caliber to tell us that the IRA’s campaign of violence has been bad for business, and I do appreciate the rhetorical elegance of his characterization of a certain aforementioned shower of corrupt village Napoleons as an obstacle to unity.
But, anyone who thinks a fully united and independent Ireland was achievable in 1920 without a vicious, even genocidal war is not dealing with reality. And given the grotesque political mismanagement, brutality and inequality that characterized not just Northern Ireland but the British State itself the conspicuously sudden resurgence of the IRA can only be treated as a horrible symptom, not the disease itself.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 08:46 AMHenry94, could you look at your calculations again and say what date in early 2016 that will happen, I’d hate not to be around.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 08:46 AMHow pathetic that a former Taoiseach should make such slanted, facile comments. He conjures a world of passive innocents bearing a uni-directional slaughter at the hands of the IRA. Short on logic, balance, analysis and realism. No wonder this is published in the Saturday edition of the paper - the one no-one reads.
From one Christian democratic leader, Helmut Kohl, we heard “Wir sind ein Volk”. From the former leader of the United Ireland Party we hear of some hitherto undiscovered “unbridgeable economic gulf”.
“Unspeakable pseudo-economic guff”, more like!!
He even has the cheek to lament some imagined damage to the United Ireland he supposedly dreams of. I don’t know Fitzgerald, but in my experience, most Fine Gaelers are the kind of people who would eschew a united Ireland if it was offered just because they don’t like republicans. And northerners.
For a former Taoiseach to be reduced to aping Conor Cruise O’Brien in his more florid moments is a come-down of tragic proportions.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 10:02 AMIt was one of the typical Fitzgerald pieces where he used statistics to back up an entirely one dimensional view of the world. The IRA only comes in for mention at the end because that way he gets to avoid the argument as to who started what and who else was involved in the conflict.
Of course Fitzgerald was the Minister for Foreign Affairs back in the 1970s and was part of the infamous Coalition government which itself colluded with the British and the loyalists. What other word but collusion could be used to describe the rush to blame the IRA for the Dublin/Monaghan bombings, the failure to properly investigate the atrocity with the worst death toll of the Troubles and the subsequent ‘loss’ of the files by the Department of Justice.
The government he was a part of was culpable in the Troubles and has blood on its hands. Sure the IRA committed some horrible atrocities in a bloody and senseless war. But that’s war, bloody and senseless. Garret Fitzgerald’s Pilate act doesn’t wash.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 10:52 AMBombing of commercial premises was the work of securocrats.
Tsk, everybody knows that…...
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 11:02 AMlook at all you lot stung by the ironic truth.
another, albeit noneconomic, point Fitzgerald could have mentioned is the F*ck You factor.
clearly the only obstacle to the democratic transition from NI to a united Ireland is that a majority of people in the NI don’t want it.
that position could easily have changed naturally if people hadn’t been polarised by the ira campaign and the resultant over-reaction by the British. unionist politics may not have developed to be characterised by such an intransigent F*ck you factor. it’s a pity it took the the IRA 30 years to realise that people will not be bulliedPosted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 11:09 AMBombing of commercial premises was the work of securocrats. I presume that Yokel is, of course, referring to the Dublin Monaghan bombings. Securocrats were responsible for those without a doubt. What else were they responsible for? Who knows?
As for Skintown Lad, his is an entirely optimistic view of how unionist politicians might have ‘developed’, Unionist politicans led the 1969 pogroms which led to the split in the IRA, the formation of the Provisionals and their subsequent war. They were aided and abetted by the RUC B Specials. And then the British Army came in and, in short time, they were on the side of the unionists also. Skintown seems to be affected by the same historical memory gaps as the former Taoiseach.
It was only the formation of the IRA which made the Unionists realise that the nationalists of the six counties would not be bullied any more.Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 11:24 AMSkintown:
‘clearly the only obstacle to the democratic transition from NI to a united Ireland is that a majority of people in the NI don’t want it.’You are missing the whole point of the article - whether the majority of people in NI want a UI or not, the simple fact is that the people of the RoI don’t want us.
The Brits don’t want us - the southerners don’t want us, we don’t want each other .... anybody starting to get a complex yet? Who’s for a separate Balkan style state and we’ll all live of EU handouts…...
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 11:32 AMThe GVA gap between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK was the same in 2005 as it was in 1995. The gap with the Republic has grown and continues to grow.
In the 50s and 60s when the Republic was closing the gap, it was the old industries Northern Ireland had to deal with that were causing the lag.
In the 70s, 80s and early 90s it was the Provos all on their own.
Since the mid 90s it has been the bloated public sector, the hundreds of thousands who don’t have to or want to work and high corporate tax rate Northern Ireland has to deal with.
I assume this reason will be peddled out for at least another decade.
And still the largest party in Northern Ireland’s only reference to economic policy in its party political broadcast for the upcoming election is a one-sentence demand for a “financial package” or else it won’t deign to sit in a devolved parliament.
Whatever has caused Northern Ireland to go from economic hub of the island to economic backwater in the space of 80 years, I don’t see the DUP as the party to turn this around.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 11:38 AMAs to whether the provo campaign was responsible for the disparity in wealth between North and South, I am not entirely convinced. He does not show a column for the period of 1969-1993 (the start of the Celtic Tiger)...in this period the 26 county economy did not perform at all and it would be interesting to see how well (or badly) the two ‘states’ performed during the actual era of the troubles. I would suggest the difference is not so great when one takes these periods into consideration…in fact, I would go so far as to suggest that the disparity has grown greater during the period of the ‘peace process’ and not before it. There are lies, damn lies, etc.
He also mentions in this article that the 26 counties could not afford to take on the role of subsidising the six counties economy, talking of a subvention of 6 billion each year requiring an increase of 12% of govt. taxes. However, one must remember that the 26 county govt. have pledged 180 billion over a period of only 7 years to the latest National Development Plan (to be paid for, not out of loans, but from everyday govt. spending), so for him to suggest that the money is not there is laughable. It might require a short-term slowdown in road building somewhere (which may not be such a bad thing, e.g., Tara), but the truth is that the 26 county state can well afford an outlay of 6 billion a year (being on average only 23% of the money being pledged annually to these infrastructural projects). Of course, an economist, immersed in the dismal science, like Fitzgerald is not able to see beyond the dry numbers in his little calculating columns. Did Germany make such a dry economic decision when agreeing to the unification of its country. Of course not, some things are above economics…but then, for Fitzgerald a political bias (a stubborn partitionist mentality) is getting in the way of any such grand vision…
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 11:38 AMThe propaganda war will increasingly be used to ‘persuade’ the people of the north that the consolidated status quo of partition serves their bests interests. Fitzgerald’s propaganda is scaremongering; improperly using statistics to support the false assumption that the subsidy that sustains the partitioned statelet would be applicable post-partition, ignoring the wider arguments about economic integration, economies of scale, Irish companies desperately short of workers who would love to locate in the north but cannot do so with two different tax systems, sets of employment legislation, etc, etc. Obviously, the scaremongering propaganda piece is aimed the aimed at both the people of the north and the south, but won’t be published in the British media since it should properly scare the British taxpayer into putting Irish unity higher up its political agenda (the opposite of the desired result).
An independent commission is needed to consider all of the economic arguments in the context of unity (not using false assumptions that partition is irrelevant to the scale of subvention, if any, etc). Since economic arguments are important to the respective cases of those who support unity or the status quo of partition, it is important that such a debate should be conducted with properly researched information, and not skewed propaganda. At any rate, while we await an independent commission (along with a fleeting glimpse of Godot), nationalists need to get their act together here and prepare arguments to counter the propaganda from pro-union media (who have a huge advantage in the media war) or risk being outclassed with nothing but scaremongering and ready media outlets. Some sort of pan-nationalist, all-party research group would be a start.
Since Fitzgerald is trading on a persona of economic brilliance that was created for him by a media that appreciated his pro-British message (in-order to enhance the status of that message), it is relevant to point out that the persona is entirely fabricated. He was, in fact, an utter disaster as Taoiseach. His economic mismanagement of the Irish economy quite literally bankrupted the state and necessitated the formulation of an all-party Programme for National Recovery (PNR) in an effort to salvage the state after his 5-years of incompetence had the effect of increasing unemployment from 10% to 18% (it would have been much higher increase had emigration not also increased dramatically under Fitzgerald, with emigration running at 20% of those seeking employment) and more than doubled the national debt. From 1982 to 1987, when Garret Fitzgerald was Taoiseach, borrowing rose to an astonishing 8% of GNP in one year, with a one billion and 771 millions budget deficit - the national debt skyrocked. Fitzgerald did far more economic damage than the IRA could ever have dreamed of.
Exchequer Balance General Government BalanceYear €m % of GNP €m % of GNP €m % of GDP
1982 -1,255 -7.9 -2,470 -15.5 - -
1983 -1,219 -7.0 -2,230 -12.8 - -
1984 -1,319 -7.0 -2,317 -12.2 - -
1985 -1,630 -8.0 -2,559 -12.6 - -
1986 -1,771 -7.9 -2,724 -12.1 - -
1987 -1,498 -6.2 -2,268 -9.4 -2,267 -8.5
1988 (b) -403 -1.6 -786 -3.1 -1,280 -4.4
1989 -334 -1.2 -608 -2.2 -773 -2.4
1990 -193 -0.6 -620 -1.9 -1,019 -2.8
1991 (c) -379 -1.1 -654 -1.9 -1,076 -2.9
1992 (d) -566 -1.6 -915 -2.6 -1,184 -3.0You can see his gross mismanagement of economic matters in the years 1982 to 1987 above. Note the dramatically the budget was brought back under control (and the country saved from the near-ruin that Fitzgerald inflicted on it) in the years 1988 to 1992 under successful Fianna Fail management.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 12:12 PMTwo points - first, this is a clear instance of figures / economics hiding the reality. The economic output was entirely being generated by and benefitting the unionist / protestant classes, and facilitating the subjugation of the minority. That violent intervention compromised output in these circumstances did nothing to worsen the economic plight of the Catholic / nationalist minority, because their economic plight was miserable anyway.
The second point is that the downturn in productivity / economic activity corresponded with the rise in IRA activity is only a single correlation, which as any good economist will tell you is woefully inadequate. For example, one could similarly correlate the demise of economic production to the rise of Glam Rock, Ireland winning the Eurovision song contest for the first time, or perhaps the first moon landing. None of these would bear any real relevance. The point I am making is that at the same time as the IRA campaign began, so too did the Civil Rights movement - did that cause the economic downturn, should we blame that? The oppression of Catholics in their denial of basic rights as democracies around the world matured (think student protests in France, Rosa Parks in the US) reached a tipping point.
All of these things, these trends, these factors, played a part in sending the North up in flames, and, yes, the IRA was a part of that. But it was essentially a part of the rebalancing of rights, the redistribution of power, and the righting of society that, given the recent O’Loan report, still has some way to go.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 12:12 PMRepublican sentiments never change on this website: i.e. it wasn’t the IRA’s fault that they bombed, maimed and killed for 35 years - the British and the Unionists made them do it. Oh, but what about loyalists, ... etc? At least be able to take responsibility for your own actions - then maybe people like myself might actually take you seriously.
I completely agree with Garret Fitzgerald - someone I’ve always thought spoke a lot of sense. Seeing as he is the product of a mixed Northern/Southern, Protestant/Catholic marriage I feel that his fairly balanced views on sectarianism should be listened to with the upmost respect and attention by people across the island.
The impracticality of an UI is summed up for me when he talks about the necessary increases in taxation that would come about as a result. Everyone knows that Northern Ireland has been a bottomless pit as far as British taxes have been concerned in the past 40 odd years (again whose fault is that?). Southerners aren’t going to be too keen to make up the deficit in the event of an United Ireland, especially one which will encompass a sizable, disgruntled and potentially militant former Unionist bloc - effectively leading to a reversal of the current Northern Irish status quo. The economic success of the Republic, EU funding aside, has been based on low levels of taxation - I cannot see how such progress can be maintained in the event of a United Ireland.
The only sensible way forward for Northern Ireland is to try and bring the 2 communities here closer together through integrated schooling, mixed housing schemes, ... etc. Hopefully we can reach a stage of normality whereby it won’t matter what persuasion someone is. Unfortunately that isn’t going to happen until people stop voting SF and DUP on mass and as things presently stand United Ireland or not there will still be huge divisions in our society.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 12:34 PM“Republican sentiments never change on this website: i.e. it wasn’t the IRA’s fault that they bombed, maimed and killed for 35 years - the British and the Unionists made them do it. Oh, but what about loyalists, ... etc? At least be able to take responsibility for your own actions - then maybe people like myself might actually take you seriously.”
Tiresome. The argument is equally reflected back - unionist never believe they did anything wrong, this was a great wee place before, refuse to take any responsibility etc. The truth is a bit of both. In what measure you can debate.
“I completely agree with Garret Fitzgerald - someone I’ve always thought spoke a lot of sense. Seeing as he is the product of a mixed Northern/Southern, Protestant/Catholic marriage I feel that his fairly balanced views on sectarianism should be listened to with the upmost respect and attention by people across the island.”
Of course you agree, as he’s telling you what you want to here. Who he is is less important than his argument.
“The impracticality of an UI is summed up for me when he talks about the necessary increases in taxation that would come about as a result. Everyone knows that Northern Ireland has been a bottomless pit as far as British taxes have been concerned in the past 40 odd years (again whose fault is that?).”
Normally, when the economy fucks up, people blame whoever runs the place, regardless of external factors. Could we try that for once? We might get something down. Then again, as they are totally unaccountable, perhaps not.
“Southerners aren’t going to be too keen to make up the deficit in the event of an United Ireland, especially one which will encompass a sizable, disgruntled and potentially militant former Unionist bloc - effectively leading to a reversal of the current Northern Irish status quo. The economic success of the Republic, EU funding aside, has been based on low levels of taxation - I cannot see how such progress can be maintained in the event of a United Ireland.”
That’s because you are trapped in dependent mindset. It’s very simple. Some money comes in from Britain and Europe to plug the gap in the short term which tapers off. Taxes are cut, the public sector is cut, tax incentives, good will is used and more private enterprise will come in to fill the gap. The Republic is still sucking in people just to maintain growth. You are going to find less subvention from England in the future anyway.
A United Ireland is not an excuse to swop one set of dependence for another.
“The only sensible way forward for Northern Ireland is to try and bring the 2 communities here closer together through integrated schooling, mixed housing schemes, ... etc. Hopefully we can reach a stage of normality whereby it won’t matter what persuasion someone is. Unfortunately that isn’t going to happen until people stop voting SF and DUP on mass and as things presently stand United Ireland or not there will still be huge divisions in our society.”
Yeah, integrated schooling and mixed housing are going to solve all our economic woes! What we need to do is stop talking about financial packages and instead talking about taking the power necessary to solve the problem ourselves, whether that is in a UI or not.
Voting SF and DUP aren’t the problem. If that leads to problems exposed, confronted and dealt with, it’ll be a damn sight better than lets-all-ignore-it-and-just-get-on nonsense spouted by some of the other parties.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 12:59 PMI hope the people of the Republic enjoy their present economic success. It is not guaranteed to last. The next 6or7 years could bring great changes.
Do you ever stop to think that 80% of the economy is controlled by American multinationals and four corporations own 20% of this. With rising standards in India and China jobs in Ireland could disappear as quickly as snow of a ditch. These foreign investors have no loyalty and will follow the dollar.
Now that the worst has happened to the German economy after re- unification more pain will have to be endured with rising interest rates which does not help the huge debt problem both personal and commercial. Will Ireland be able to stay in EU or will it try to go it alone like some of the Nordic countries? If so it will have no interest in UI and will run away from it.Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 01:00 PMthe simple fact is that the people of the RoI don’t want us
Not so.We really pine after our separated Northern brethren.Honest.Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 01:00 PMYes, Ireland’s comparison to Great Britain over the last 30 years would point to other factors going on in the south that are responsible for a large part of the discrepancy.
I suppose you could make the case that if the 6 counties merged with the south in 1968 then it could well have been one of the richest regions in Europe today and possibly the main driver of the celtic tiger ?
I think a small local government has shown itself to have had an advantage over the last thirty years. It’s up for discussion but it looks like being the same for the next thirty years.
Possibly with security and politics being shared now, everyone can focus on NI replicating that small government model.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 01:01 PMDiluted Orange, you’re missing the point. Like I said in my previous post, ‘the IRA was a part of that’ - I’m not arguing that ‘The Troubles’ weren’t partly their fault.
The argument is about making an economic argument from a single correlation, and drawing an absolute conclusion. This is an academically flawed argument, and deceitful in that it is presented in an academic (statistical) context.
But you have to accept that a society that is so woefully imbalanced and oppressive, to such an enormous minority, cannot sustain itself indefinitely. Therefore it is intellectually disingenuous of the good doctor to select one admittedly major dynamic (viz the IRA) and lay the blame for that society’s failure (or event its economic underperformance) at its feet.
A final point - the twelve percent figure is mind-numbingly stupid. Not even Fitzgerald himself could conceive of a straight, point-in-time transfer (i.e. the costs are now yours, Mr. ROI, deal with it!), and even if that were the case, financial structures could be established to offset some of the admittedly higher cost per capita. To even suggest a figure is scaremongering, and, once again, intellectually dishonest. Notwithstanding this, can you imagine how many times this figure will be quoted as an authority? It has no back up, and is a back-of-a-beer-mat calculation, if indeed any calculation was done at all, yet its placement and source will give it an authority that is misplaced.
This is most disappointing and egregious coming from one of Ireland’s grand old men. He is pursuing personal and political demons through obfuscation and disinformation, and it is disappointing that he would stoop so low. One expects more.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 01:17 PMAnother point that should have been blindingly obvious to Doc Fitz is the deleterious effect the Troubles had on the Southern economy - lost investment,lost tourism revenue,resources diverted from productive areas into security etc.In fact it only really took off when things began to settle down in the mid 90’s.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 01:27 PMKensei
Of course you agree, as he’s telling you what you want to here. Who he is is less important than his argument.
Spelling mistakes aside I think who he is means we should sit up, listen to his argument and take it in.
1. He’s a former Taoiseach and he thinks an United Ireland would be unworkable - hardly a compelling advert for Republicanism.
2. As I’ve already pointed out he’s from a mixed background and so should hopefully be less full of tribal bullshit than other Irish politicians. I trust him to be more able to tell it as it is rather than as his tribe would like it to sound.
Of course he’s telling me what I want to hear, I would like to think I’m quite tolerant. Unlike the vast majority of Republican sympathisers, with respect to the IRA, I can take criticism of Unionism and the British government.
What I cannot accept is that you guys seem to think that in countless instances where the IRA indiscriminately killed Protestants and Catholics in NI they somehow progressed life here and set us on a road towards some harmonious, heavenly state of bliss within a United Ireland context. If SF succeed in dissolving partition a United Ireland will be anything but harmonious, unless they miraculously transform the Unionist mindset into desiring such a state of affairs, and they aren’t going to do that with bombs and bullets.
A United Ireland is not an excuse to swop one set of dependence for another.
So I gather that once we are part of a UI that the NE 6 counties will somehow become a beacon of economic endeavour. SF are going to lead us to this capitalist utopia (even though if my memory serves me correctly, sectarianism aside, SF are supposed to be a socialist party - doesn’t really fit neatly into the idea of a modern European economic super power does it?)
Yeah, integrated schooling and mixed housing are going to solve all our economic woes! What we need to do is stop talking about financial packages and instead talking about taking the power necessary to solve the problem ourselves, whether that is in a UI or not.
You conveniently omit my ‘etc’, I don’t suggest that such ideas, where Prods and RCs are living side by side and growing up together, will solve all our problems but it might just make life here a little more bearable and maybe inject a bit of tolerance into people here.
United Ireland or not if drastic social change does not occur here I will always be an ‘Orange Ba##@rd” to the majority of Catholics here and you will always be a “T##g” to the majority of Protestants here.
Voting SF and DUP aren’t the problem.
Sorry are you from Northern Ireland? SF and DUP represent all that is wrong with this place - on one side we have the IRA and on the other we have the epitomy of Puritanism in the 21st century to whom Roman Catholics are some sort of inferior human sub-species. The idea that these 2 polar opposites will somehow form an effective governmental partnership would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad.
If that leads to problems exposed, confronted and dealt with, it’ll be a damn sight better than lets-all-ignore-it-and-just-get-on nonsense spouted by some of the other parties.
As shown by Nuala O’Loan’s report, Patton Report, ... etc the truth is never going to be easily swallowed nor will even be accepted as the truth if one side doesn’t agree with the findings. We should just all accept that we’ve all been vile to each other and try to move on.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 01:40 PM“How blinkered of Fitzgerald to mention only one of the parties to the conflict. It was unionist rule the reaction to the Civil Rights Movement that caused the conflict and it was the British belief in a military victory that prolonged it. “
Well lets take it back to its logical conclusion. It was Irish republicanism’s rejection of free market economics, foreign ownership and adoption of a narrow nationalistic isolationist approach which segregated the island from its natural place in the world that caused the economic woes in the south and created an unstable state in the north.
... and it is very, *very* ironic that stability on the island has come as a result of the reversal of every one of these policies (and includes republicans beating at the doors of Stormont ot get in).Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 02:02 PM
