The esteemed British politician and promoter of Brexit, Michael Gove, voiced during the pinnacle of the 2016 Brexit campaign that citizens of the UK had grown weary of specialists. This sentiment appeared to ring true as demonstrated by the outcome of the subsequent referendum. The warnings of perilous economic repercussions of Brexit disseminated by experts had been disregarded by the British public. They are currently experiencing the consequences of their decision at a leisurely pace. As they reflect on how Brexit failed to substantially reduce immigration rates into the UK, they also brood over the far reaching and regrettable impact of Brexit on Britain’s global stature.
The UK once held a key position on the world stage as an archetype of political and governmental virtuosity, embraced and replicated by nations globally. Regrettably, it now serves as a stark admonition of a specific political trend.
The ramifications of Brexit are nowhere as deeply understood and felt as in Ireland, which was closely involved in the affair. This underscores the significance of the lessons Brexit imparts for Ireland.
During a recent focus-group discussion for a series considering attitudes towards a potential united Ireland and related matters, a participant from Northern Ireland adamantly declared how Brexit was managed as utterly flawed. They highlighted how the decision to depart was confirmed before the negotiation, a move they deemed entirely peculiar. Hence, the participant suggested, the discourse surrounding Ireland must adopt an alternative approach. Agree on the conditions of departure, followed by the vote.
Participants of these focus-group discussions were firm about learning from Brexit’s trajectory. In the event of border polls in the two jurisdictions, participants stressed the need to be informed about what to expect. This includes understanding the vision for a united Ireland, examining the proposed changes, assessing what will remain unaffected, and scrutinising the financial implications.
Similar sentiments are echoed by Sinn Féin and the broader campaign for a united Ireland. Their mantra seems to be “dialogue”, pushing for an open discussion about a united Ireland and encouraging all voices to be heard. However, just as with Michael Gove, they seem more selective when it comes to listening to professional advice that does not agree with their perspectives.
Last week, there was an attempt by those advocating for open dialogue to undermine a recent report authored by economists, John FitzGerald and Edgar Morgenroth. Their study approximated that uniting Ireland might result in a €20 billion annual cost to the Republic for two decades. The report’s findings were dismissed as flawed, its approach criticised, while some went as far as personally assaulting the authors.
Sinn Féin TDs, including Pádraig McLochlainn the Chief Whip, denied the report’s conclusions, asserting that post unification the British Government would still have to cover certain expenses in what was formerly Northern Ireland. Unionists have depicted this attitude as akin to “depart but leave your purse on the table”. Those disturbed by the report’s findings criticised its research, selecting alternate, more flattering reports and surveys.
The fiery response from Joe Brolly, a football commentator, barrister, and representative for Northern Nationalism’s grievances with their southern counterparts may hint at a future united Ireland discussion turning personal, partisan, and bitter. He claimed that John FitzGerald is part of the Fine Gael “blue blood”, referring to his grandfather as a founder of FG. He also noted how his father, a former Taoiseach, supported Thatcher’s stance on the hunger strikes. “He detested our community,” Brolly added. He appears to be attacking the man rather than his findings. This illustrates how factions can leverage endorsing views, while dismissing those they disagree with. If FitzGerald’s research had shown that a united Ireland would prove economically beneficial, Brolly would likely have acclaimed FitzGerald’s heritage.
The frequency and entertainment value of Brolly’s outbursts are well known. His views on Gaelic football align with mine. Nonetheless, his recent blowout serves as a cautionary tale about the high-intensity and explosive discourse likely to surround the impending unified Ireland conversation. The potential for personal assaults based on individual perspectives and ideologies is real. However, this doesn’t warrant avoidance of the debate. Instead, it calls for a careful and considerate approach, ensuring we present our arguments in a civil and constructive way, remembering the forgotten concept in politics – differing in good faith.
The core issue at hand, though, concerns the economic implications of a united Ireland. Undeniably, we are greatly in need of a thorough economic analysis covering all facets of unity – notwithstanding the unpredictable nature of political stability following unity.
The precedent set by our recent past implies we should prepare for the worst possible outcomes. Prior to the financial collapse 15 years back, an air of reassurance filled the political and economic atmosphere, suggesting a gentler touch would land.
In contrast, our former Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, made significant comments this week. He confessed to underestimating the resilience of the economy post-financial crash and once more after the health crisis. A more optimistic outlook, he believes, might have expedited public investment initiatives, housing, in particular. Whether that’s the case or not, he’s spot on about the robustness of the Irish economy.
Indisputably, obtaining a holistic economic assessment for all elements of unity is necessary, despite the political stability following unity being an unknown factor. The discourse surrounding economics and wider politics should pivot on facts, truth, and reality, not loudly arguing about taking sides. A meaningful dialogue involves not just speaking, but also active listening. Let’s ensure our approach isn’t a backward one.