“Let’s go on a journey and forget about the destination”, was how Brian Cowen described the Belfast Agreement’s “genius” for getting everyone working together towards opposing constitutional goals.
There was quiet wincing when the taoiseach said this in 2010, and when he repeated it in his final speech to the Dáil a year later. Some considered it trite or cynical, or both. But its cheesy wisdom has since been demonstrated by the Shared Island Initiative, a clearly nationalist project that has won cross-community acceptance by not declaring its destination.
Cowen has been vindicated again, this time in the negative, by Fine Gael’s blueprint for a unified island, launched at its party conference last weekend.
The blueprint’s good ideas for co-operation will go nowhere precisely because they declare a destination. Its key proposal is to begin developing an all-Ireland economy now through cross-Border development agencies, infrastructure investment and other economic links.
This is to be arranged through the North-South Ministerial Council (NSMC) of the Belfast Agreement, which runs the six existing north-south bodies and empowers the Government and Stormont to create more.
There is already a north-south economic and business development agency, InterTradeIreland. Fine Gael wants it to form “a new strategic partnership” with IDA Ireland and Invest NI.
Such cross-Border partnerships are common across the world, especially in Europe. The island of Ireland is conspicuously lacking a powerful example. It could be sold as a constitutionally neutral benefit to the North and South, leveraging differences as well as similarities. But if a “united Ireland” destination board is slapped on the front, unionists will simply veto it. They can do this via the Northern Executive, or they could throw a strop and boycott the NSMC, which is unlawful but not an offence and hence a tempting stunt.
A confident unionism might welcome the proposal as bringing prosperity that would secure Northern Ireland’s place within the UK. But that is not how unionism conducts itself at the best of times. If it did take this stance, the result would be a vehicle with different destination boards at either end, liable to get stuck, come apart or unnerve the investors it is meant to impress.
Most proposals for cross-Border co-operation would play out the same way: unionism has a veto and would be justified in using it. The veto was inserted into the Belfast Agreement to reassure unionists the NSMC would not be a vehicle to trundle them into a united Ireland.
[ What’s in Fine Gael’s plan for a united Ireland?Opens in new window ]
Fine Gael cannot say it was not warned. The 34-page blueprint is the party’s analysis of two independent reports it commissioned: a research and stakeholder consultation exercise conducted by Prof Deirdre Heenan of Ulster University, and an economic assessment by Prof Stephen Kinsella of the University of Limerick.
In her report, Heenan found widespread willingness to discuss the future provided the outcome is not predetermined. This is not just a matter of unionist squeamishness: many others held this view.
There is a taboo against constitutional arguing in polite company in Northern Ireland.
Some nationalists believe it is achievement enough at this stage to promote debate on unification, even if it alienates unionists and centrists. However, Heenan was sceptical of this tactic, while Fine Gael claims to want an inclusive conversation.
Exasperated nationalists might say “sod the unionists, we’ll just have to outvote them”. Indeed, an increasing number of nationalists do appear to be saying this.
Even if this approach is politically viable, Kinsella questions if it is economically viable. A united Ireland may require so much investment and growth north of the Border that intensive work is essential many years in advance. That would require unionist co-operation, or at least prolonged unionist acquiescence.
[ Planning for a united IrelandOpens in new window ]
Kinsella’s remit obliged him to consider scenarios proposed by others, including Britain continuing to pay state and unfunded public sector pensions for decades without receiving the taxes that fund them, plus northerners paying Irish taxes while receiving lower benefits and public sector wages than southerners.
It beggars belief that Fine Gael has indulged this absurdity while claiming it wants to bring facts and clarity to the debate.
Kinsella also considered credible costs and dynamics for unification, including high-growth scenarios where the former Northern Ireland would eventually pay for itself.
Of course, regions do not need to pay for themselves, as Kinsella notes. Most regions of the UK and Ireland are in deficit.
[ Start sovereign wealth fund to pay for costs of unification, says Fine GaelOpens in new window ]
A self-financing Northern Ireland addresses nationalist concerns about unification. It also holds intrinsic appeal to unionists and others, partly because it would require centre-right economic policies and partly because it would indulge the sense of Northern Ireland as a country. People who would never undertake a journey to the end of their country might embrace one promising them dignity and success.
For the foreseeable future, nationalism needs those people on board.
