Sir, – The debate on the constitutional future of our island needs to be an informed one, and I agree with Sheila Davidson that facts matter (“We need facts and not rhetoric about a united Ireland”, Opinion & Analysis, November 29th).
So here are some facts. In comparison to the south, life expectancy in the north is 1.4 years less, there is a 12 per cent gap in disposable income, more people are at risk of poverty and hourly wages are about 31 per cent lower.
The north’s economy has persistently performed poorly, and before the pandemic had the lowest economic growth and productivity across both islands, with higher rates of so-called economic inactivity. That poor productivity – the ESRI recently published research highlighting a 40 per cent gap in productivity between north and south – in fact is the reason a “subvention” is needed at all.
Of course the subvention, the difference between total expenditure in the north and revenue raised, has been the subject of considerable analysis. When broken down and removing the things that the north is charged for without any say, including British military and servicing the British national debt, it is actually between £2 billion to £6 billion depending on whether pensions are included or not, and that of course will be subject to negotiation.
When put in the context of a projected surplus in the south’s budget of over €6 billion in 2023 and €10.7 billion in 2024, as an argument against unity it doesn’t stand up. Especially considering the potential economic benefits of Irish unity, set out by Prof Kurt Hubner in 2018 of up to €23.5 billion by 2025.
Sheila Davidson points to a handful of policy areas as benefitting from what she describes as “investment in our economy”, highlighting health, social security and legal aid.
The Tories have slashed funding for our health service for 12 years, at a time when it needs investment. Tory cuts have made people’s lives more difficult. Tory austerity continues to put the north’s legal aid under budget immense strain and in Britain, the British government has overseen cuts to their justice system which has left practitioners, judges and academics deem it not fit for purpose.
In a new Ireland, we could deliver an all-island national health service that is free at the point of delivery, a stronger economy and with more and better jobs, a first-class education system, better and net-zero infrastructure and more social and affordable housing.
The loss of the unionist electoral majority and demographic changes have sparked a new unionist conversation on protecting the union, but it cannot distract from the irreparable damage done by Brexit and the mess that the Tories have made of the economy.
They want to stop the unstoppable conversation on a better future.
More and more people are questioning what the future looks like for them and their families, and looking towards a more attractive and prosperous alternative to the Tory-led, post-Brexit Britain that has pushed mortgages through the roof and crashed the economy and created the biggest cost-of-living crisis in decades.
The Belfast Agreement provides the opportunity to choose a better future, where we can control our own destinies. That for me and for many is a far more attractive option. – Yours, etc,
CAOIMHE
ARCHIBALD, MLA,
Sinn Féin spokesperson
on the economy,
East Derry.
Sir, – The outcome of a referendum on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland will depend on what governmental structures and accommodations are proposed, how the question is phrased and preparation (Colin Harvey, “A Border poll this decade remains likely and preparing for it is essential”, Opinion & Analysis, December 10th). Your “North and South” series of articles, based on the Ipsos poll for The Irish Times and ARINS, demonstrates that NI Protestants are not a homogeneous group, with a significant proportion willing to offer “strong support” for a devolved authority within a new Ireland. Indeed, this has a similar degree of support (roughly a third) among NI Catholics and the NI Others. Devolution, however, is unpopular among Republic of Ireland respondents, who seem reluctant to consider unfamiliar constitutional arrangements. This conservatism, apparently, is due to a feeling that the continued existence of NI does not satisfy nationalist definitions of “unity”. It is a pity that constitutional options were not investigated further. A referendum in NI requires support from both NI Protestants and NI Others for success at the poll and during implementation. Devolution for NI, therefore, must be on the table for political and legislative reasons. Other parts of Ireland need not be disadvantaged democratically as a result. Constitutional reform could be based on a federation of Ireland’s historic provinces. A Dublin-based government with devolved powers to four provincial assemblies would address the needs and aspirations of the NI electorate in a reunified Ulster, and recognise the significant economic and social differences among the other provinces. For example, political oversight of services, economic development, housing, environmental protection and support for sport, arts and culture might be better served by provincial assemblies.
I share Colin Harvey’s wish to maintain momentum leading to change, but I would turn the issue of constitutional reform over to an international panel of constitutional lawyers to develop the options and prepare a draft constitution. This would also separate constitutional change from and association with the political parties in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland who are bound by their pre-partition and Civil War origins and vested interests that sustain entrenched views and division within both electorates. – Yours, etc,
IAN MONTGOMERY,
Castlewellan,
Co Down.