The conversation on a united Ireland is a game where participants profess their support for the concept in general, while trying not to get trapped into supporting anything in particular.
Another round has just been played by the all-party Oireachtas Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. It has published the first of a series of reports on “constitutional change”, this one focused on the economy.
Widely reported as saying preparation should begin immediately, what it actually says is that the Oireachtas should establish a new committee to discuss the issues this committee has already been discussing for years.
Three government departments with economic portfolios should “examine aspects of the all-Ireland economy” and report back to the committee. There should also be a “comprehensive examination of the implications of constitutional change across all Departments and State Agencies, led by the Department of the Taoiseach”.
Last week, Simon Harris said the prospect of a Border poll “just doesn’t arise currently” and his priority is economic improvement, so the committee has kicked a ball into his court. It should be simple enough to kick back. The implication of unification for most departments is that they would be serving a 40 per cent larger population.
The committee also recommends “sector-by-sector” public consultation – talking shops for all – plus a separate forum for political parties to have input into “a Green Paper setting out a vision for a united Ireland”.
This amounts to talks about talks. A Green Paper is “a discussion document which sets out the Government’s ideas and invites comment and views from individuals and relevant organisations”, to quote the Oireachtas guidebook.
The only specific ideas from the committee relate to improving existing areas of north-south cooperation, much of it long overdue or already planned by the Shared Island Initiative. None of it is contentious because avoiding contention is the point: let some poor dreamer down the line suggest a new flag or joining Nato, then be crucified by their political opponents.
Vagueness serves the further goal of promising paradise.
One of the committee’s 15 recommendations is that a united Ireland should be considered “an opportunity to build a new welfare state from the ground up”, with more rights for carers and children. However, the report dodges proposing a new healthcare system, promising only “opportunities for economies of scale” and “development of centres of excellence”.
[ UK will act as ‘honest broker’ on question of Border poll, says StarmerOpens in new window ]
It also dodges the question of the Irish language in a new education system, despite being told by the general secretary of the Irish National Teachers Organisation that “there is absolutely no way” compulsory requirements could continue.
The committee heard and received much expert testimony over more than a year, meaning a lot of firm views and specific ideas have been weighed up and boiled down to nothing. Committee members would doubtless say it is not their role to decide the shape of a united Ireland. Still, could they not have taken a collective position on any of these arguments?
Most of the report’s chapter on the cost of the united Ireland was based around two claims that attracted media attention earlier this year. In April, the Institute of International and European Affairs (IIEA) said a united Ireland would cost €20 billion a year over 20 years. Several academics from Dublin City University and the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) have said it could cost as little as €1.5 billion a year if Britain continued to pay state and public service pensions and wrote off Northern Ireland’s share of the UK’s national debt. The committee heard from both sets of academics, wrote up their statements, noted their “stark differences” and concluded more research is needed.
Is it though? It seems clear the IIEA overlooked €1.5 billion of tax revenue, while the ESRI’s pension and debt claims are wishful thinking and its lower estimate of the subvention is absurd. Why could the committee not say so after more than a year of deliberations? Even the official figure it cites for the subvention is five years out of date.
The report asks for unionist opinions. My opinion of it is mixed. On the one hand, it is something of a relief to see it is just another nationalist exercise in circling around the issue and each other.
On the other hand, even as a unionist, this is frustrating. Like everyone in Northern Ireland I am doomed to a lifetime of the constitutional question dominating and distracting politics. Terrible things have been done and Herculean efforts made to bring those things to an end. Yet most nationalist politicians will not risk the slightest awkwardness by setting out a few details of what they would like a united Ireland to entail.
If any of them are doing this for fear of upsetting unionists, they might as well stop.