Leo Varadkar, fairly or unfairly, is probably not the figure who comes to mind straight away when one is asked to think of a prominent Irish nationalist, and yet it was notable that in one of his final interviews as Taoiseach, it was he who offered the simplest and most cogent response to last week’s IIEA report putting the cost of Irish unity at €400bn over 20 years:
.@LeoVaradkar speaking with @mcculld on Irish unity "unification should never be about money" pic.twitter.com/p0qVfkrK4i
— David McCann (@dmcbfs) April 8, 2024
I have some sympathy for Varadkar in general on this question because I come from the same – often misrepresented – school of Irish nationalism as he does. We do not have many things in common, except, perhaps, being regularly derided as “west brits” for a shared hostility to a lot of physical force republicanism and skepticism of the rosy-eyed view that a united Ireland is simply a matter of winning one vote on one day in the future and in the process righting 800 years of pain.
Skepticism of those ideas, though, does not make one any less of a patriot: The ultimate re-unification of Ireland into a single unitary all-island state is both a legitimate political aspiration and a natural desire that the great majority of Irish people feel in a place closer to the heart and the soul than the logical part of the brain that concerns itself with money and economics.
The German example Varadkar provides is a good one: In many ways the re-unification of Germany was a greater undertaking than the re-unification of Ireland might ever be, at least from an economic perspective. After half a century of the cold war, the two halves of Germany were much more diverse, economically, than the Republic and Northern Ireland are: On this island, sovereignty aside, north and south share a basic economic model, broadly similar political values in terms of the role of Government, broadly aligned models of social service delivery, and much more. Assuming we are serious about the “for all” part in the “Ireland for all” slogan, when it comes to respecting the cultural and religious sensibilities of the unionist community, the actual pragmatic job of aligning North and South is not beyond our national capabilities.
Nor, frankly, is €400bn a price either beyond our capabilities or aspirations, even if that were to end up being the figure: Varadkar is correct to point out that such a figure amounts to 3-4% of our national annual income (GDP) or, if you’re somebody skeptical of GDP because of the distorting influence of multinational corporations, something like 7-8% of our real national income once those are subtracted. We spend more every year on the health service as things stand.
More to the point, as I wrote last week, he is right that arguments about money miss the point entirely, and those who are arguing that the €400bn figure is inaccurate are also missing the point.
If anything, nationalists may have missed an opportunity by not simply shrugging their shoulders and saying “if that’s what it costs, then that’s what we will pay”. There’s more than a hint of “arguing with your fiancé over the cost of an engagement ring” about the focus on money: The real question is whether unity, either in marriage or in national terms, is worth it. Diamonds and large chunks of GDP both send the same message to your intended: Yes, you’re worth it.
My friend Jason O’Mahony often compares the debate in Ireland over a United Ireland to the debate, pre 2016, in the United Kingdom about Brexit: His fear, he says, is that we jump head first into unity without any proper debate over the economic or social impact of the changes that will follow. He is right, I think, that this is a risk. I would posit that it is a risk that arises though, from an unwillingness by some nationalists to fully commit and say from the outset that money doesn’t matter in this equation.
It should be remembered, after all, that the Independence of the Republic was itself a giant leap into the economic dark: After centuries of membership of what was then the world’s largest customs union – the British Empire – the Republic decided to go its own way. In economic terms, it was certainly painful for a few years but few would argue that we have not achieved a degree of prosperity that skeptics at the time would have thought impossible. Nor would many Irish nationalists have considered independence in 1920 and rejected it on the grounds that membership of the Empire was more economically beneficial.
There is a case then, I think, for nationalists to figure out a way to pull the €400bn together, whether that be via tax increases on existing taxes or the proposal of a special unity levy that would apply north and south to raise funds – and also to set out exactly how that money would be spent. When you are challenged, the wisest thing to do is to demonstrate that you can meet the challenge, and do not fear it.
Arguing that the challenge is overstated, on the other hand, projects a degree of weakness and a lack of confidence. On this one, on his way out the door, Mr. Varadkar’s instincts, unlike those of many nationalists, were right on the money.