Conference tallis::celt

    I wouldn't for one minute disagree with what the economists in question
    have said primarily because I'm not qualified to do so but also because
    it appears to be fairly common sense to me anyway.
    
    If unification does ever come about it will be very gradual with only
    perceptible changes happening over decades. It is the duty of the
    Republic's government and people to work for the strongest, fairest
    economic order possible here not so we can become suitable for union
    but because that is the right thing to do for Ireland.
    
    The potential for synergies (not just economies of scale) in
    infrastructure, tourism, commerce and culture is there now and does not
    require re-unification to release it.
    
    Open, frank and rational discussion on the Island's future have a much
    better chance of success in an environment of opportunity, peace and
    fair play. To this end the British government would do well to
    facilitate Sinn Fein's/IRA's backing out of the armed struggle without
    placing too many obstacles over the hand up of weapons. The weapons
    will have to be decommissioned at some stage but for now the fact that
    they are not being used should be welcomed. 
    
    The British governent is not entitled to and should not look for a
    victory now. This sorry conflict had no winners and a lot of innocent
    losers. There is a distinct and welcome lack of "machismo" from both
    extreme Loyalist and Republican groups and any such behaviour from
    Dublin, London, Washington or Brussels would be inappropriate and
    unhelpful.
    
    Paul

 re. .0

  Why should the British people be forced to subsidize an artificial
  economy in north east Ireland?  Answer: they shouldn't.  So no matter
  what, north east Ireland is probably going to lose it's 3.4 billion
  special "subsidy".  Now it might make more sense for the British government
  to slowly remove these funds, and use the existing money to build a 
  real economy (one that does not need to be subsidized to exist), and
  one that would not be a burden but an advantage to all the people of Ireland,
  when both the occupied and free states are unified.

  The logic used in .0 would have left east Germany still occupied by the
  Russians.

  Has anyone looked at the economic advantages of a united Ireland?

 re. .1
  I believe that the British insistance on a unilateral disarmament only
  further goes to prove the real lack of British government interest in
  a lasting peace.  All the weapons in north east Ireland should be removed,
  those held by the British forces, those held by the loyalist
  terrorists, and those held by the Irish Republican Army.

re .2,

Mark,

creating a real economy using existing funds is a great idea, though
I'm sorry to say I feel it's unlikely to happen given our present
government's total ineptitude in running any sort of economy.  Probably
the best thing they can do is to leave it well alone...  :( etc.

Chris.

    The report in .0 seems to be based on the idea that the British pull
    out their troops and their money overnight.
    
    When reunification comes about the British government should be made to
    pay for the mess they created when they partitioned the country. The
    current political situation in NI is a British creation, they should not 
    be allowed to walk away from it without paying money to clean it up!
    
    Tony.

    
    
    The Irish economy (South) would indeed suffer if IT was to support the
    population of Northern ireland. but look at reality. To say that "taxs
    would go up" to support such a transition is an excuse!!..
    
    Look at reality..If the irish tax payer was to try and support this
    economy we would be paying 70-80% tax...at least 
    
    The Irish economy is very very heavily subsidised from the EEC...
    Its the EEC that will pay for re-building Northern ireland.....even if
    it comes from Southern exchequer coffers. 
    
    I can not really understand hearing folk complaining about how much we
    (southern irish tax payers) would have to pay for any changes when we
    take great pleasure in seeing how much we can "get" out of the EEC 
    ..And that goes for "getting what we can" out of the USA tax coffers
    also. Its a mentality which comes from the sad political structures
    we have here at the moment.
    
    My line on this for..what its worth..is that the economic issues around
    re-building ireland are a total smoke-screen. 
    
    If we need to focus on getting this peace process solid its local 
    admistration and policing that need to be sorted out...fast.
    
    rgs,
    
    Mick
    
    
     
    

    A couple of things...
    
    Reducing security & police costs should be a benefit to both 
    the Republic and Britain should a lasting peace evolve. Something
    like 1/3 of ever pound spent in the north goes to security. 
    
    And there will be a marked increase in tourism in the north
    as peace continues. Many people haven't seen the Giant's causeway
    and other noted attractions and would like to.
    
    Many cross border institutions like energy and tourism can be
    created today, without much fuss over politics. This gradual
    integration will pave the way for more full unification.
    
    And I question the claim that living standards in the south are
    1/3 that of the north. Maybe on paper, but does that include the
    subsidies of the British exchequer in the north or the EC in the
    south? 

    
    
    We are now about 4 months on in the ceasefire. Having met and talked
    with alot of people..albeit mostly nationalist...from Northern ireland. 
    I was saddened to hear that they..for the most part..have not seen any
    decrease in cases of "harrasment" from Security forces. (not
    British soldiers but RUC/RIC)
    
    I know thats a very very general statement and theres always two sides
    to every story...
    
    What was interesting was an article by Garret Fitzgerald (former
    Taoiseach and leader of Fianna Gael...friend of maggie Thatcher) In
    the irish Times. He stated that he was disturbed by cases he has been
    hearing of increased harrasment of Nationalists....and these were from
    contacts not neccesarily from the nationilist persuasion.
    
    This is akin to the Sadam in Iraq saying that the isreali's have the
    right to their land in isreal!!!!!!!. 
    
    Not good...not good at all....
    
    Gareth..Have you heard anything of this????
    
    rgs,
    
    Mick   

    Hi Mick,
            and a happy new year for 1995.
    
    I must admit that I haven't heard of this harasment either personally
    on in the local press, but I haven't been reading the press much over
    the holidays, so that doesn't mean it ain't happening.
    
    I was shooting over the holiday's down on the border with Cavan. I went
    through the Border post at Augnacloy without seeing anyone in the post
    and we shot within sight of the secuity post at Killeas without
    anyone bothering us.
     
    I personally feel that there has been a reduction
    in the security presence, we certainly don't have a helicopter hovering
    over the office like we had pre. ceasefire. Driving approx. 40,000 miles 
    a year in the province I tend to notice checkpoints which have now
    disappeared on the main trunk roads since September.
    
    Here's hoping I'll not be seeing any in 1995 or hearing bombs or
    bullets.
    
    Drunk drivers certainly took the hit over Christmas with the
    police being redeployed to traffic duties. I hear your new drink
    driving laws didn't go down too well, particularily in rural areas.
    It's difficult to know who has the valid point, what's your views Mick?
     
    Anyway, it's pheasant for dinner tonight.
    
    I'm working on a project in Dublin for the next six months, so I'll call 
    over and meet you
    
    Rgds
    
    Gareth  

re: .0

I think it's the author's of that report that are suffering delusions!

It assumes stasis in the Irish economy. I understand the short
peace so far has boosted the economy quite a bit? A permanent peace
would almost certainly result in an improved economy.

Although the troubles have created a market for security services (in the
widest sense) that's all non-productive activity. If that energy was
put into productive work instead again it would have positive impact.

The traditional protestant complaint against the British was that they
constrained economic activity. PResumably free of those constraints
more economic activity would develop.

I think the ultimate settlement will be some kind of lease-back deal
perhaps modeled on Hong Kong. Those that consider themselves British will
retain that citizenship for their lifetime. The transition will be gradual.

ALso I think the author's of the report in .0 are assuming an 
anti-federalist plan for the EU in the future, however there is an
even stonger push for a federalist plan from France, Germany, Holland, etc.. 
If Ireland aligns with the federalist plan then aid from the rest
of Europe is quite likely. If you take the US as an example, the living
standards of the tiny state of Rhode Island aren't radically different
from California. The Federal Govt. acts as a great leveller.

I would put .0 down to scarmongering

Mark