The late Irish politician John Hume was a very well-respected leader who won a Noble Prize for his work on the Irish peace process. On a regular basis, he would share the story of how his father commented on a nationalist demonstration when he was growing up saying that “you can’t eat a flag.” The point that Hume’s father was making is that advancing the nationalist cause in Ireland did not always result in economic progress.
A Sinn Féin Commission on the Future of Ireland meeting in Belfast on June 28, eloquently demonstrated that Hume’s father may have been wrong. The evidence demonstrated at the meeting on the Future of Ireland showed that a new and united Ireland made economic sense. The event was chaired by Ulster University’s Cathy Gormley-Heenan and the panellists were key members of Sinn Féin’s economic team: Pearse Doherty TD, a long-standing member of the Oireachtas Finance Committee; Dr Caoimhe Archibald MLA, Minister for Finance at Stormont; and Conor Murphy MLA, Economy Minister at Stormont.
The question that was hanging over the event was the debate about the cost of a united Ireland. The Belfast Telegraph has pointed to a report earlier this year by the Institute of International and European Affairs (IIEA) suggesting a united Ireland would cost the Republic €20bn (£17m) a year over two decades. This pessimistic assessment was countered in an Irish Times op-ed by Professors John Doyle, a professor of Politics and Vice President for Research at Dublin City University and Brendan O’Leary, Lauder Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania.
Doyle and O’Leary conclude:
In short, it rational to believe that the whole island will benefit from the Republic’s policies in the long term. Yes, there will be uneven development — there always is. But redistribution, done properly, will be from rich to middle and poor, not from the South to the North.
The costs of unification are therefore overdone, and the benefits often underplayed.
In my mind, Doyle and O’Leary make the more compelling case for the cost of Irish unity. However, early in the meeting Dr Caoimhe Archibald, posed another question that is as important as the cost of Irish unification — can Northern Ireland afford to continue to be part of the United Kingdom? Economy Minister Conor Murphy gave some important background for considering this question pointing out that at one time Northern Ireland was the most economically vibrant part of the United Kingdom while today it is one of the poorer parts.
For the people of Northern Ireland, the question becomes do you want to continue to be part of the economy of the United Kingdom which is sluggish at best, or do you want to be part of the Irish republic which is growing faster than the United Kingdom and is linked to the European Union? For years, there has been an assumption that the people of Northern Ireland benefit from being part of the United Kingdom. It is well past time for those who want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom to demonstrate the economic benefits.
Those who argue that the cost of Irish unity is too high are not asking the same question about remaining part of the United Kingdom. Is that price too high? The evidence that Sinn Féin presented at the meeting in Belfast indicate that the cost of remaining part of the United Kingdom is too high. What I would hope now is that those who want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom will present their arguments as to what are the economic benefits of the status quo. There needs to be a conversation on the economic benefits of the status quo and of the cost of a united Ireland. The people of Ireland, north and south, are entitled to a discussion of their economic and political future.
It is my sincere hope that the election of the new British government will prompt all political parties in Northern Ireland to sit down and have a serious conversation about what constitutional arrangement makes economic sense for the people of Ireland.
.jpeg)
