Sunday, February 18, 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 @ 10:54 PM
mnob,
Even Garrett Fitzgerald isn’t arguing that economic production suffered because of the IRA’s economic policies!!! Come on, give us a break! I think he was referring to the ‘let’s-blow-up-prods-and-brits’ policies.
Even ignoring this for a minute, it would only have been ironic if the reversal of those policies had led to Irish unity, not mere stability. The ambition of the IRA was never, directly, stability.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 12:18 PMAvalonSunset
I want you
“come to me all ye who labour and I will give you rest”Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 12:24 PM“1. He’s a former Taoiseach and he thinks an United Ireland would be unworkable - hardly a compelling advert for Republicanism.”
I dreamt that Mr. Haughey had recaptured Crossmaglen
Then Garret got re-elected and gave it back again.I would suggest there would be other Taoiseachs who’d disagree. Leaders can have wacky views too, but it still comes down to their argument.
“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.”
He’s telling you what you want to hear. What’s the quality of his argument?
“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.”
I don’t believe I ever said that. But people joined the IRA for a number of reasons, and the prevailing conditions here created by unionist government where part of that. It had political root causes, and when those started to be addressed, we started to get movement, which was visibly more successful than criminalisation.
“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.”
No one is using bombs and bullets any more. Aside from loyalists, obviously. But SF won’t dissolve partition. A majority vote in the 6 counties (and 26, obviously) will.
A UI will not miraculously solve all our problems. It is the best framework to do it, and it is the option that gives us the right tools. And, by the by, on the “Unionist mindset” - there is a implicit threat of violence in that, no?
“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?)”
Why this focus on SF? A United Ireland is the thing most likely to “smash SF” as vote fragmentation would be inevitable. You may not have noticed, but the SDLP also desire a United Ireland, and there are even people who fall into neither of those camps that do. I have no association with SF, either.
And yes, in the long run, in a UI, the North will converge with the rest of the island. Whether that remains a beacon of economic endeavour is another matter. What does mater is that we have the tools available to make whatever country we see fit. Something we lack even with the Assembly running.
“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.”
No, I highlighted the key points you highlighted. tolerance won’t solve our problems. There are also things on both sides that shouldn’t be tolerated and should instead be dealt with.
“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.”
Most people here don’t think like that.
“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.”
No, they aren’t the problem. They are what people voted for and sneering doesn’t help.
“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.”
Ignoring shit doesn’t make it go away. And that ignores current problems, never mind past misdeeds.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 12:24 PMthe simple fact is that the people of the RoI don’t want us
Last I heard, in a ‘state of the nation’ poll done towards the end of last year, 77% were in favour of a UI. But what would I know, I’m only a Southerner. I’m sure unionists have a much better idea than me about how we think down here!
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 12:37 PMDO - ‘We should just all accept that we’ve all been vile to each other and try to move on.’
You know, in the Irish Times on Friday David Adams made this same point. Essentially, he was complaining that Mary McAleese was banging on about how she was oppressed as a Catholic, and how the Unionists were terrible to her family.
He doesn’t like it, and Unionists generally don’t like it because Unionists don’t come out of it too good. And before you go mentioning the two-way street, only one party was in government, controlling the apparatus of state - that’s the difference, that’s why it was so wrong.
Look, I don’t want to perpetuate or ferment, but just pretending like it didn’t happen, or suggesting that we ‘shelve it’ and move on, that’s not going to fix it.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 12:52 PMNext we will being told that the PIRA didn’t bomb the hell out of businesses and target many busyness people. Or perhaps that running a business in war conditions is good for you.
Republican and Loyalists paramilitary organisations had a serious negative effect on the economy for a sustained period of time and in some areas still have a downward influence.
The troubles were not inevitable.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 01:03 PMWhat a slap in the face it must be to the die hard unionists to discover that they are too poor to be Irish
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.
No what some of us state is that the life of catholics in northern Ireland has greatly improved because the english were forced into admitting that they were being oppressed and further forced into ending that oppresion.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 01:09 PMThe troubles were not inevitable.
Posted by Crataegus on Feb 19, 2007 @ 02:03 PM
No they werent, the protestant majority could have treated the catholics with respect and dignity, but they didnt!
It was the Protestants of northern Ireland that made the troubles inevitable
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 01:12 PMWhen De Lorean was looking to build his car the rival Porsche cost $8 000 it cost the British government $7 000 a head to keep a worker employed at Harland and Wolff.
At the time the Republic was headed towards being a basket case, they chose not to follow that path.
NI does not know any other path.Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 01:20 PMCrat,
Come on, let’s not get silly. Bombing is not good for the economy. Period. The IRA did not help the economy. Period.
The point is (or at least one of the points is) that econometrics do not tell the whole story. Economics is not the beginning and the end of life on this island. What you can’t see from the figures was the enormous gap between rich and poor, between Catholic and Protestant, between Unionist and Nationalist. Maybe economic production was high, but it was being generated by and benefited a discrete portion of the community, and excluded a dangerously marginalised population.
What the whole sorry mess proves, if anything, is that you cannot wifully ignore the rights of a large minority in a context of democratic / capitalist expectations and expect to get away with it.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 01:20 PMThere’s one aspect of Northern Unionism which it shares with those who deny the holocaust. They like to deny that life was bad here for nationalists. The best they can do is admit it was a ‘cold house’ and then they try and pretend that the north has become a cold house for unionists. As if. Did anyone see how quickly and trouble free the process was for the Queens Festival to get a grant. Or Windsor Park?
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 01:28 PMJG,
Dessie O’Malley nearly got De Lorean to build his factory in Limerick only the Irish government didn’t like the whole deal.It was a close-run thing though.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 03:01 PMGarret Fitzgerald does himself a disservice by him completely ignoring the global change/shift in industry and economics and its long-term effect on the NI economy. Don’t forget the massive closures in the textile, chemical, aircraft and shipbuilding industry along the east coast not to mention the major closures in textiles to the west. Not one of these could be attributed to the IRA campaign. Most were the result of downsizing/rationalisation, migration to lower pay countries or changes in taste/fashion and methods of manufacture. A lot of NI industry had old plant and machinery which at some stage would have needed replacing. Why incur higher costs at home when you can newbuild a brand new complex in countries at a fraction of the cost and whose taxation and rates of pay are highly advantageous to the employer.
Of course, the IRA campaign had an effect on the NI economy. That, I believe, was its intended purpose. It had, however, IMO, a short term effect overall. The global changes are more worrying and, I would suggest, will have a far more serious consequences in the long run.
When you separate the political spin from the economic argument, Fitzgrald’s article is nothing but a grubby piece of partitionist scaremongering in which he tries to appeal to that most despicable trait of certain types of Irish people - greed and gombeenism.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 03:03 PMPS. But then, there’s an election in the offing…
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 03:05 PMAnthony B
“He doesn’t like it, and Unionists generally don’t like it because Unionists don’t come out of it too good. And before you go mentioning the two-way street, only one party was in government, controlling the apparatus of state - that’s the difference, that’s why it was so wrong.”
So what you’re saying is that I shouldn’t mention the IRA campaign that killed 2,000 people and maimed many more. The same campaign where terrorists took people from their own communities and ‘disappeared’ them. Etc, etc, ad nauseum.
Of course I could go on but it was obviously the fault of Unionism. I like the way you can put a value judgment over the whole dire affair and say, “we’re better than you.” The Stormont regime was not perfect and did discriminate against Catholics and the civil-rights movement bravely stood up for the rights of Catholics at the end of that period. What annoys me is that Republicans like to re-write history and pretend that the IRA campaign was somehow married to the peaceful civil rights movement and that it was some sort of progression on from it.
Sean
“What a slap in the face it must be to the die hard unionists to discover that they are too poor to be Irish”
I’m Irish whether the Republic wants me or not, there are 2 states on this island. The thing is that I’m Northern Irish too and most people here can’t seem to accept that I can be proud to be Irish but at the same time don’t want to be ruled by Dublin. The Republic likes to exercise a monopoly over the term Irishness, which just further alienates Unionists.
Oilibhear Chromaill
“There’s one aspect of Northern Unionism which it shares with those who deny the holocaust.”
Really, have a word with yourself. This is the sort of self-precious, play the victim crap I’ve come to expect from Republicans. Get an encyclopedia and look up an event called “World War II” and then maybe you wouldn’t be so flippant to compare the systematic extermination of 6 million Jews with the plight of NI Catholics.
kensei
“And, by the by, on the “Unionist mindset” - there is a implicit threat of violence in that, no?
Let’s face it if things continue like they are and a United Ireland occurs in which Unionists are marginalised for not being “proper Irish”, fail to be consulted about how any such change should come about or aren’t even challenged about the pros/cons of the Union, is it not inevitable?
“Most people here don’t think like that.”
I didn’t say that; I was suggesting that most people in NI, not this site, think like that, which sadly I think they do.
”(SF and DUP) No, they aren’t the problem. They are what people voted for and sneering doesn’t help.”
I’m not sneering, I’m actually in despair. People get what they vote for and when they vote for these two parties they are voting for division.
“Ignoring shit doesn’t make it go away. And that ignores current problems, never mind past misdeeds.
Maybe so but I don’t see how we are ever going to progress as a society unless we do just that. Harping on about our troubled history for ever is not therapeutic and only leads to derision. When each episode is considered one side always comes out of it as the good guys and the other side gets portrayed as the bad guys. I don’t see any benefits arising from that scenario.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 03:36 PMPapist lovin’ Romanist
“Last I heard, in a ‘state of the nation’ poll done towards the end of last year, 77% were in favour of a UI.”
There must be a lot of drugs taken down South because if I was a Southerner I wouldn’t want to touch us with a barge pole. In fact I’d probably want to hire a tug boat and drag Northern Ireland out to somewhere in the mid-Atlantic.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 03:42 PMDiluted Orange,
I think you might not have a full understanding about how strong a drive a UI can be in the ROI. Altough, to be fair, it was a poll, and polls and voting are two completely different things. If all the hard facts were put out into the cold light of day, I’d say that percentage would shrink when translated into ‘yes’ votes. But it will all depend on the manner and circumstances in which a UI may possibly come about. I don’t know if this or the next generation (or whenever if it happens) want to be historically burdened as the generation who said ‘no’ to unity. I’d say this last factor will carry the most weight in any decision being made south of the border.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 04:16 PM“And, by the by, on the ‘Unionist mindset’ - there is a implicit threat of violence in that, no?” - kensei
“Let’s face it if things continue like they are and a United Ireland occurs in which Unionists are marginalised for not being ‘proper Irish’, fail to be consulted about how any such change should come about or aren’t even challenged about the pros/cons of the Union, is it not inevitable?” - Diluted Orange
So, violence from the unionist community would be “inevitable” despite the absence of the extreme conditions which provoked a violent backlash from the nationalist community and provoked The Troubles, yet the violence from the nationalist community wasn’t “inevitable”? Interesting insight.
Historical precedent shows that you are correct, however, to assert that unionists will use violence (and the threat of violence) to oppose constitutional politics. The leaders of the DUP founding the terrorist group, Ulster Resistance, in response of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1986 is one precedent; and the Ulster Unionist Council founding the UVF in 1913 (recruiting 90,000 men under the command of Sir George Richardson and importing 35,000 rifles and 5 million rounds of ammunition) in response of the Home Rule Bill is another. While that threat of violence succeeded in securing partition, it will have less success in securing its abolition. The reason for that is that unionist violence is not validated by the aim of national self-determination; it is invalid pro-state violence, not valid anti-state violence. It will lose its raison d’être post-partition. It will also lose the financial, political, and military support that it derives from the union. There won’t be any government that is prepared to use unionist terrorists as part of its covert military campaign, by proving them with arms, training, intelligence, or OOB orders to enable them to carry-out their (pointless) campaign.
Ireland has a written constitution: that means no government is above the people (ergo, unlike the monarchy, the government is fully accountable to the people for its actions), and it means that unionists will have equal rights under that constitution, so there is no possibility of that community being discriminated against. You might also note that Ireland’s first president (the guardian of its constitution) was a protestant, so the state has no history of such discrimination, anyway.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 04:30 PMDO,
I like the way you can put a value judgment over the whole dire affair and say, “we’re better than you.” The Stormont regime was not perfect and did discriminate against Catholics and the civil-rights movement bravely stood up for the rights of Catholics at the end of that period. What annoys me is that Republicans like to re-write history and pretend that the IRA campaign was somehow married to the peaceful civil rights movement and that it was some sort of progression on from it.
To say that Stormont was ‘not perfect’ belittles the legacy. It is almost as if you’re following sentence would be ‘but sure nobody’s perfect!’
On the Civil Rights movement, if you read what I wrote you will notice that I deliberately separated it from the IRA - in fact, I used it as an example of a separate dynamic that could equally be attributed with the demise of economic production in the North, using Garrett Fitzgerald’s logic. As could the moon landing.
For clarity, the moon landing also had nothing to do with the IRA, it just happened round about the same time.
I’m off now. More history to re-write, a republican’s work is never done :)
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 04:34 PM“Let’s face it if things continue like they are and a United Ireland occurs in which Unionists are marginalised for not being “proper Irish”, fail to be consulted about how any such change should come about or aren’t even challenged about the pros/cons of the Union, is it not inevitable?”
The idea that Unionists won’t be consulted on the shape of a UI state (including symbols, Constitution and the like) even if there was just one vote in a referendum and every single Prod voted against is a bit mad.
Moreover, there are natural allies in the politics of the South for current Unionists. It seems the threat of violence would be considerably reduced just by getting rid of a few mad ideas, no?
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 04:36 PMOne more - Dubliner, Ireland has a written constitution: that means no government is above the people
- unless your name is Michael McDowell, of course. Then you can make up your own rules about presumption of innocence (Frank Connolly), separation of powers (bail laws) or right to silence (recent press release), because its populist, low-brow electioneering.
Now look, I’m going home angry.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 04:37 PMFine Gael has failed miserably to convince the voters that it would be any better at government than Fianna Fail so Fitzgerald has resorted, not for the first time to attacking the largest nationalist party in the North.
Fair enough - That’s what politicans, especially failed politicans do and it wouldn’t bother anyone except for his selective recall of the economic history of this island.
In the 1920’s and 30’s NI was given Dominion status and the chance to stand on it’s own economic feet just like Australia and Canada. The North had the advantage of what modern industry there was on this island while also having a sufficient agricultural hinderland. The South in 1920 was famously described as “a brewery and a large farm”.
By 1938, in spite of economic war from a vastly richer foe De Valera had created a modern state with an average income equal to the North according to Mansergh, while the North had created nothing and was saved by war-profiteering at the expense of Britain.
Even after the war and the postwar surge which followed it the North never attained the ability to stand on it’s own feet and was always a poor relation to Westminster.
Only when that relative poverty was unfairly heaped on nationalist areas and there was 24% unemployment in Newry and Derry while Ballymena and the ‘new city’ in Craigavon boomed did the Northern nationalists rise.
Even then they tried to do so peacefully and were first batoned and then shot down in the streets for their impertinence.
If Northern unionists don’t accept the need to accept their mistakes and embrace a new beginning their community will die of shame and the best and brightest will continue to leave. When even the British Conservatives, one of the most isolated parties in Europe, won’t touch you it is time to acknowledge that a rethink is in order.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 05:36 PMNow altogether:
I’m a victim, I’m a victim, I’m a victim, ...
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 05:37 PM“#
Now altogether:
I’m a victim, I’m a victim, I’m a victim, ... “
Really, what’s your point?
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 06:03 PMDiluted Orange,
Irish nationalists are triumphant, even triumphalist, while unionism needs to find a role for itself in a New Ireland.
Maybe that is the very point you are making.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 06:05 PM
