Head over to our T
Complaints about cross-border development funding for Northern Ireland
Read more about: Economy, Northern Ireland 
Rumours that the latest National Development Plan will include a significant funding of cross border links has led to some complaints about such an idea here.
I could make a case about the morality of providing support for Northern Ireland in view of shared historical ties, culture, politics and so forth. I could speak as a someone who believes that new forms of Nationalism and Republicanism can be developed that celebrate all aspects of the identities on this island and that requires funding. But I can’t be bothered.
Because, from a purely pragmatic point of view, it is strongly in the interest of this state—quite separate to any issues relating to a United Ireland—to have a partner north of the border which is economically viable. But more importantly it is necessary, indeed imperative, that this state invests in stability in Northern Ireland. Some of the views on this issue have been frankly partisan, narrow minded and downright stupid with a sort of blinkered ‘Little Irelander’ mentality parading as hard-headed self-interest.
Well, newsflash: former Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald (who should be lauded as a man who understood the paramount necessity of peace and stability to the self-interest of the 26 counties so that both parts of the island could co-exist and develop economically, culturally and politically), initiated one side of this process through the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Everything else, right up to and including the GFA and the much-vaunted Plan-B should the St. Andrew’s Agreement fall is part of that process.
The Republic of Ireland has a quite pointed strategic, and entirely selfish interest, in ensuring that there is no repetition of the last thirty odd years, and that is going to require funding, not rhetoric.
As to whether this will play as an election issue, I seriously hope not.
Just wait for Kenny to kitefly on this. I’m sure a focus group analysis is already been poured oover.
“it is strongly in the interest of this state—quite separate to any issues relating to a United Ireland—to have a partner north of the border which is economically viable. But more importantly it is necessary, indeed imperative, that this state invests in stability in Northern Ireland.”
Yes it is in everyone’s interests that Northern Ireland be economically viable, but I see no reason to believe that addiction to Irish subsidies is going to achieve what addiction to UK subsidies has failed to do. Is there such a reason? How is socialism suddenly going to start working for them?
“Stability” goes unexplained in the above post too. What has it got to do with us paying for Northern projects? How does that prevent terrorism, as opposed to, say, police efforts?
The unfortunate reality is that large numbers of people in Northern Ireland are horribly tribal and collectivist. If the basic premise of civilisation is that people should not attack and impose themselves upon each other, then they are truly uncivilised, and nothing is going to save them.
This story represents little more than the reflexive statism of people all over this island. The cult of the state is alive and well, and it is the individual spirit which is crucified.
Wulfbeorn, a couple of small points. Firstly I don’t believe statist solutions are the necessary in every, or even all situations. However, in this instance I find it difficult to believe that funds to improve infrastructure are incorrect, indeed I’d point to the way the Federal Government in the USA funded their rail and road links in the early 20th century and onwards as an example of how limited state intervention can play a positive role in engaging and encouraging entrepreneurial endeavour.
Whether we agree or disagree on the tribal and collectivist aspect of those within NI, something I don’t think we do, the reality is that the permeation of consumerist and market economy norms ( something I think we do agree upon ) can only lead to stability both political and economic. In that instance it’s not a case of reflexive statism, but rather a nuanced seed funding to arrive at an end we might both agree on.
As for stability, I’m at a loss to understand how you can misunderstand that. Surely a stable political and economic entity in the north eastern corner of the island can only be good for this polity? That would appear to me to be self-evident, particularly in the context of the historical record where inward investment to the 26 counties was lessened by the conflict a mere 150 miles up the road.
If only we were talking about limited state intervention. According to the Sunday Times, the state controls 63% of the economy of Northern Ireland, employing a third of all workers.
Re: consumerist norms and stability, you are asking us to believe that an expansion of socialism to the tune of €1 billion in Northern Ireland will (a) help people there get used to living in a market environment, and (b) help to prevent terrorism. Both are pretty unbelievable propositions, and I don’t think we have been presented with any evidence for either of them.
The great thing about seamless ideologies of left or right is that they are entirely self-referential or solipsistic and short cut the necessity for engagement in the dirty grimy reality of the world.
I prefer to pick and choose from what works, with a slight tilt (for nostalgic as much as any other reasons) to the left. Now that’s just pragmatism, but as someone I know says “whatever it takes”.
I am probably as cynical as you about statism. But it’s just another tool… and sometimes it’s necessary to pick it up. Incidentally there is a significant difference between social democracy and it’s limited interventions in a market (assuming such a market exists in the first place) and command economy style statism.
Finally look at the historical record. As economic fortunes have increased in Northern Ireland the level of violence across the society has receded. So (b) strikes me as a fairly self evident proposition, and (a) is already in train…
“As economic fortunes have increased in Northern Ireland the level of violence across the society has receded.”
Thats not actually evidence for (b), and there is still no evidence for (a). In particular, the above statement does not indicate whether economic fortunes are caused by the level of violence, or the level of violence is caused by economic fortunes. I would guess that there is a rather complicated relationship between the two but the point is that there is no information given here which will allow us to analyse it, so your conclusions are unsupported.
A fallacious argument:
1. Bob has a great career and goes to Disneyland every summer.
2. His brother Bill is unemployed and has never been abroad.
3. Therefore, to help Bill kickstart his career, we should send him to Disneyland.
The road network in the north is quiet good certainly better then anything we have down south. An while it can’t be said we don’t need roads I think the north doesn’t need roads to increase economic well being. It could do it with the roads it has.
And, wbs, you need to do even more than show that the plan will achieve the objectives you say it will. You also need to show that it will realistically be worth the price paid.
By the way – I don’t expect you or the government to be able to do any of this, or even to try very hard to do so.
To be honest Simon I have to differ slightly with you. Within the last twelve months I drove from Dublin to Dungloe through the six counties and back. The actual physical state of the roads within Northern Ireland was surprisingly poor in comparison to the autobahn south of the Border, a point I would suggest that should have us doing as much as we can to improve infrastructural links between the main part of this state and our North Western corner, entirely apart from the issue of the North and stability.
However, to return to Wulfbeorns interesting points, obviously in view of your own ideological leanings I cannot convince you that any state intervention is worthwhile. If we chart economic development in the North it parallels the ceasefires as I proposed in (b). It’s still impeded by the large state sector. However, I think you should note that economic growth in NI was twice that of the rest of the UK during the 1990s, the very time that paramilitary violence subsided. Unemployment fell from 17% in the mid 1980s to 4.5% in 2005 (figures from the Dept. of Enterprise, Trade and Investment NI – http://www.detini.gov.uk). Manufacturing productivity, trade and output are all up, 5.2%, 3.1% and 3.5% respectively from 2004 to 2005 (Last year figures available – Northern Ireland Executive), so your Disneyland/Bob analogy is incorrect. As for (a) it seems to me self-evident that as economic growth continues the appetite for paramilitary violence diminishes and vice versa. Currently we have the two largest political blocks actually agreeing (largely) over the St. Andrews Agreement.
I’m sorry, but to me this seems a small price to pay to enhance stability. As reported in the IT today it is noted that:
“Under the plan, co-operation on roads, rail and air links, energy and education would be accelerated to ensure that the €100 billion earmarked for spending on infrastructure in both parts of Ireland over the next decade is well spent.” but also “the document insists that cross-Border co-operation should occur only where it can be shown that the Border has created problems that need to be faced jointly, rather than separately.
This doesn’t strike me as an extension of the public sector which we both want to see streamlined.
So I’m not entirely certain that you’re not mistaking two different forms of state intervention? One is where there is a large state public sector which is indeed true in NI, the other is where funding is disbursed by the state to private enterprises in the construction and other sectors. My understanding is that it is the latter instance that is occuring in this case. Were it simply the former I would largely share your critique.
I think some funding flowing north if it is in infrastructure that can have a benefical effect for the lower 26 is fine. Boosting medical treatments that require a catchment of 500K people in Derry would make sense as folks from Donegal could access them too, as does improving the road network that accesses the NW via NI.