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
Really, what’s your point?
My point is that this is the subtext for about 90% of posts I hear on this website (from both sides) - it’s infuriating.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 06:39 PMOh come on, it’s broken record stuff. Have you actually read any of the criticisms of your earlier posts?
Rise above the tired clichés of front line politicians and ask the hard questions yourself, then you might be able to critically analyse the thing. It’s only infuriating if you can’t engage with the argument.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 07:36 PMHENRY94
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.
In large part, the Troubles were indeed caused by unionist misrule and the reaction to the civil rights movement, but that does not alter the fact that it was the terrorist campaigns that damaged the economy: and the Provisional IRA was the main protagonist - not only in murdering and maiming humans, but destroying infrastructure and economic targets.
ANTHONY B
The economic output was entirely being generated by and benefitting the unionist / protestant classes, and facilitating the subjugation of the minority.
Entirely? So not a single nationalist/Catholic was employed? Balls.
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.
It did worsen it. Unemployment among the minority increased during the Troubles.
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.
No, but the Provo campaign is relevant because it involved attacking economic targets, destroying businesses and making NI a no-go area for investors.
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 civil rights movement didn’t instigate a terrorist campaign that destroyed businesses and made NI a no-go area for businessmen and investors.
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.
There can be no justification for the PIRA’s murder, maiming and infliction on misery on human beings, and most certainly not the “rebelancing of rights” that was happening peacefully in any case.
KENSEI
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’m unaware of unionists who claim they did nothing wrong. There are, however, many on this site who support the PIRA murder campaign.
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.
The Government is in large part responsible for the economy, but that doesn’t mean that the PIRA was not to blame for causing major damage to it: a legacy we are still suffering from.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 07:36 PMTHE DUBLINER
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.
Training? “OOB orders” (whatever they are)? Any chance of some evidence for these claims?
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 07:41 PM“..that doesn’t mean that the PIRA was not to blame…”
The economy was always in trouble and will remain so as long as we are a remote part of a fracturing UK. There may have been an argument once for being part of the British Empire so that we could play our part in plundering the rest of the world. That argument vanished half a century ago.
The French and the Germans were able to get together quicker after a world war than we are after our little scrap and yet we still have unionists so blinded by hate that they can’t see that they are sawing off the branch they are sitting on.
People won’t put up with it for much longer. If unionism doesn’t set up a permanent Assembly the game’s up for NI whether there’s a Plan C or not.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 07:53 PMThe economy was always in trouble
Even if so, that doesn’t mean that the PIRA was not to blame for the dreadful damaging caused by its terror campaign.
and will remain so as long as we are a remote part of a fracturing UK.
How do you know?
The French and the Germans were able to get together quicker after a world war than we are after our little scrap and yet we still have unionists so blinded by hate that they can’t see that they are sawing off the branch they are sitting on.
The meaning of this comment is unclear.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 08:04 PMAnthony B
“Oh come on, it’s broken record stuff. Have you actually read any of the criticisms of your earlier posts?
Rise above the tired clichés of front line politicians and ask the hard questions yourself, then you might be able to critically analyse the thing. It’s only infuriating if you can’t engage with the argument. “
Tired clichés? The only tired clichés I’m hearing are from your corner, this thread has been successfully turned on its head from one discussing Garret Fitzgerald’s quite appropriate opinion that maybe a United Ireland isn’t going to benefit anyone economically to a thread outlining the same Republican grievances over and over again.
Republicans need to be asking themselves the hard questions - such as why was it necessary to brutally kill thousands of people if what they’ve ended up achieving at the end of it is something much, much less than their United Ireland vision.
They need to swallow the fact that any future attempts to persuade the Unionist majority that a United Ireland is be a good thing are going to fall on deaf ears, where as if they hadn’t been laden with a history of violence and thuggery they might have been able to convince Unionists otherwise.But then you don’t seem to be able to grasp the simple point that the IRA campaign was wrong and was never justified, despite whatever issues there were with British/Unionist rule.
You want me to engage with your argument but I’m afraid there’s not really much of an argument to engage with - I say we should try and move forward, you say but what about Unionists: surely they are to blame for everything? I say grass is green, you say but what about Unionists: surely they are to blame for everything? It’s the same answer to everything yet Republicans can’t even see that maybe, just maybe, they might have been responsible for their own despicable actions.
What exactly do Republicans expect from Unionists? Do you expect us to role over and take the blame for everything, absolving Uncle Gerry and his cohorts for their role in the Troubles? Because I honestly believe that is what you want and what you think might happen if you push hard enough. All this dwelling in the past does no-one any good but maybe Northern Ireland will find that out by itself after another 10 years pass, 20 years on from the GFA, and we continue to embarrass ourselves with our petty bickering instead of dealing with more pressing current issues.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 08:21 PMThe Troubles were bad and I had friends on both sides killed during them, but let’s not indulge in hyperbole. There were more people killed in road accidents.
Now that the Troubles have been over for years we still have the two unionist parties tearing each other apart about whether we can have powersharing or not. It’s madness and it affects members of my extended family who want to have a life in NI.
I would prefer to have property or a business in Newry than in Portadown and call me an innocent if you like but for me politics are all about houses and jobs. The South has them and is willing to share, is in fact already sharing them, while in the UK we will always take second place to the North of England or Wales.You may disagree with me all you like but please don’t patronise me by pretending not to understand what I have posted. It’s nice to see you posting again. Goodnight,now.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 08:25 PMDiluted Orange,
How many times does it have to be pointed out that no-one wants to persuade Unionists to become Irish nationalists, or even believes it possible?
It is a very small portion of the post-unionist population we need to persuade to leave the garden centres, rather than to appeal to one of the most defensive and wrongheaded populations left in one of the most remote parts of Europe. Appealing to unionists would drive away the very people needed to build a New Ireland.
What kind of progressive would want to cling to the ailing remains of a defunct empire which can’t find a modern role for themselves? The idea is absurd.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 08:33 PMlib2016
“It is a very small portion of the post-unionist population we need to persuade to leave the garden centres, rather than to appeal to one of the most defensive and wrongheaded populations left in one of the most remote parts of Europe. Appealing to unionists would drive away the very people needed to build a New Ireland.”
So as I’ve said before you’d rather go into a United Ireland with a sizable minority of disgruntled Unionists, which will lead to the same problems we have here currently only it will be under the flag of a different state. Hardly a progression then is it? Also your diatribe about a whole section of people is pretty much tantamount to sectarianism.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 08:47 PMChrist on a crutch! Rue the day when Garret the Good can sink as much Slugger bandwidth as Gerry, Derry or the feckin’ flag.
Practice concision, Slugettes. Fitzgerald makes only two points, one implicitly, one explicitly, yet shies away from the obvious conclusion.
The implicit point was to point out that terrorism’s aim which is strictly intimidation and misplaced fear, not body count, was hugely successful in the North. By forcing a climate of fear and reaction in the north, the IRA forced the British Government to react in an hugely disproportionate manner. The Chuckies spent millions on terror, the English spent zillions on security, thus severely deforming the economy.
The explicit point is that the Provos have put the gun in their mouth: Reunification will take a 12% tax increase which will likely shut down the Republic with roving lynch mobs. I did the same calculation on this site a couple of years ago with the same results. That the funds are “available” without taxation or borrowing is just fucking nonsense - those funds reside with the weapons of mass destruction and Jimmy Hoffa.
The conclusion that he avoids is that there will be a search for a Sugar Daddy, someone with deep pockets, baseless optimism and a short memory ,that avoids any recollection of German reunification.
Normally that would make the USA a prime candidate. The optimism and memory criteria are uniquely satisfied. Regrettably, the Iraqi’s have beat you lads to our pot of gold.
Try China.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 08:59 PMwillowfield,
don’t have time to address all your points, sorry, but the last one synopsises well:
There can be no justification for the PIRA’s murder, maiming and infliction on misery on human beings, and most certainly not the “rebelancing of rights” that was happening peacefully in any case.
I’m not trying to justify anything; the point I am trying to make is that in 1970 (ish) Northern Ireland found itself in an invidious position, where all sorts of things were screwed up in the society as a whole. That there was economic productivity of X or whatever did not account for the inherent weakness of the society. That the economy failed after that point was not due to one factor, but to many. It’s a classic cause and effect thing, chicken and egg - the IRA were going away before the oppression of Catholics gave it a new raison d’etre. Therefore the oppression of Catholics caused the economic downturn because it created support for the IRA which attacked economic targets? I don’t think you can make that extrapolation any more than you can the first (IRA = poor economy).
The rebalancing was a thing that happened. The IRA for good or ill were a part of that. The rebalancing itself cannot neccessarily in and of itself justify the actions of the IRA, which is a separate argument.
I don’t think the rebalancing was happening anyway in 1970. The O’Loan report alleges collusion as recently as 2005 - that’s 35 years after 1970. Is that reflective of a balanced society? Can you hold your hand up and say honestly that the North is now balanced? It would be, in my opinion, a brave position to take.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 09:23 PM“The explicit point is that the Provos have put the gun in their mouth: Reunification will take a 12% tax increase which will likely shut down the Republic with roving lynch mobs. I did the same calculation on this site a couple of years ago with the same results. That the funds are “available” without taxation or borrowing is just fucking nonsense - those funds reside with the weapons of mass destruction and Jimmy Hoffa.”
It isn’t nonsense. 6 Billion Euro per annum can be culled by making sacrifices elsewhere when you are spending a few hundred.
But then, it wouldn’t be six billion euro per annum. Perfect opportunity to milk the Brits for some transitional funds, milk the EU a bit more, and use goodwill in the US to get some more investment in the North. There would be inevitable job losses in the public sector in the North and it wouldn’t be anywhere near 6 Billion by the time you had all to deal with all of it.
Of course, we could just go the US route of, well, just borrowing shit and hope no one notices. How’s that debt clock looking these days?
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 09:45 PMWell it took 60plus comments, but at last someone addressed directly the actual topic.. rather than attempting to divert the conversation down their preferred cul-de-sac.
Thanks, Jim. I had been losing all hope for this discussion.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 09:49 PM“Well it took 60plus comments, but at last someone addressed directly the actual topic.. rather than attempting to divert the conversation down their preferred cul-de-sac.
Thanks, Jim. I had been losing all hope for this discussion. “
Congratulations! It’s the least productive comment and most condescending comment ever!
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 09:55 PMAt the risk of sounding laboured, and feeling rather small following the Petey Smackdown :) I did mention in a post from last century something about financial structures to offset the 12% figure, part of which is basically some kind of international fund. A more direct kind of peace dividend…
Surprised Jim missed Shergar in his list of Hoffa and the Iraqi WMD. Or Northern Bank notes for that matter :)))
I’m parking my own personal cul de sac for the evening :)
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 10:09 PM6 Billion Euro per annum can be culled by making sacrifices elsewhere
David Stockman died for your sins.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 10:11 PMCongratulations! It’s the least productive comment and most condescending comment ever!
Our lad has stumbled upon a singularity point, that which happens when the thing becomes itself but must exist within the same point in the time-space continuum.
And thus Slugger becomes a black hole.
Cutting to the chase, the kid’s contribution gets Fealty the Nobel in Physics.
Why Mick, you old Rocket Scientist.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 10:21 PM“David Stockman died for your sins.”
Oh, I know I sound like a right wing lunatic. But despite being reasonably left wing, the size of the North’s public dependence is alarming - last estimate 70-odd%. That’s not a mixed economy. that’s a Soviet one. It’s unsustainable and has to be tackled UI or no. UI probably gives the best impetus to really tackle it though.
And if you are spending 180 million euro over a 7-year period, then yes, there is 6 billion a year to be culled if you are prepared to make sacrifices. It isn’t insurmountable.
On reflection though, I’m missing transition costs
which could be high.Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 10:23 PMShould be 180 Billion, obviously.
“Our lad has stumbled upon a singularity point, that which happens when the thing becomes itself but must exist within the same point in the time-space continuum.”
That was the intent :).
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 10:25 PMGarret had this to say nearly a year ago about how we in the Republic were lucky the Rising happened when it did and that we were poor enough to get out.
“By the time that Britain might finally have been prepared peacefully to concede independence to our part of Ireland, the financial cost of such a separation would have been so great for our people - probably entailing a drop of 25 per cent or more in living standards - that it is highly unlikely that the Irish people would have been prepared to accept such a sudden and huge drop in their standard of living.
The truth is that we got out from under British rule just in time - at a moment when the cost of the break was still bearable, involving as it did only a small reduction in public service salaries and in the very limited social welfare provisions of that period. And, of course, without the independence thus secured in the aftermath of the Rising we could never have become a prosperous and respected state and member of the EU.
For it is only because we became politically independent that we have enjoyed the power - which Northern Ireland lacks today - to adopt policies enabling us, somewhat belatedly, to catch up with the rest of Europe, including Britain, in terms of national output and living standards, and to join that Union in our own right, rather than as a subordinate region of the eurosceptic UK.
Without the impetus to early Irish independence provided by the Rising, it seems to me impossible to make a credible case for the emergence of a successful Irish State by the end of the 20th century.
Indeed, I have never heard anyone even attempt to make a case for a successful Irish economy being achieved on the basis of a move to Home Rule rather than independence in the early 1920s.”
Now we just have to wait for someone from the unionist side make a case for a successful Northern Irish economy on the basis of a move to Home Rule.
If they don’t Northern Ireland will never “catch up”.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 10:44 PMAt Last Kensei, a full and frank admission:
“That was the intent :).”
Can we now refer to you, officially, as our Cynic in the Workplace!!!
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 10:44 PM“Can we now refer to you, officially, as our Cynic in the Workplace!!!”
No, you really can’t. I just get immensely irritated when one of your come on to make pronouncements about the plebs. Particularly when it is after the fact. If Pete had wanted to change the course of the debate, he could have done so anytime.
If someone is condescending, my immediate reaction is to give it straight back. Perhaps I should reign that in, but maybe people shouldn’t do it in the first place.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 10:54 PMGeorge
Not only are the two arguments put forward by Garret FitzGerald, one of which you reference, not mutually exclusive.. but your additional comment doesn’t relate directly to either.
The actual topic is the current position of the economy in Northern Ireland (or at least 2005).. and the part played by the PIRA’s systematic campaign in moving to that position - as I said, it’s something that is all-too-often neglected.. and, as we see here, sometimes ignored.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 10:59 PMThere is another cost of re-unification that is often ignored.
Everyone thinks it will be a merger with everyhing going on as before.
However how many unionists will leave ?
it will certainly be tens of thousands and will be the most mobile - educated middle class professionals and business people and skilled workers who will realise whatever assets they can and migrate to GB and elsewhere.
That will make the post unification NI economy even worse.
In addition the impact on house prices would be severe - the potential negative equity problem here could be drammatic.
Indeed as people start to see the numbers heading towards a UI in a referendum many will be tempted to sell at the top of the curve and get out early.
How many SDLP types in South Belfast will want to usher in that scenario ?
Unionists will not be slow to make those points.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2007 @ 11:14 PM
