From: dwilkins@maths.tcd.ie (David Wilkins)
Subject: Re: This Favorite Lie Again.
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:06:27 GMT


In article <27915@dog.ee.lbl.gov> mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
>Dr A. N. Walker writes:
>mike>does it work in practice?  "Now that I've stolen everything you had,
>mike>you're working for ME."
>
>>	Kindly explain how *I* have stolen *anything* you (or anyone else)
>
>It's meant figuratively
>
>>	If you can identify some *current* wrong that I am inflicting on
>>you (or my family on yours), then we have the basis for a grievance, fo
>
>No, sorry, I *don't* accept this as the only basis for grievance.
>Accepting it is, as far as I am concerned, tantamount to saying,
>"Now that I've stolen ... "
>
>If it can be shown that you're still deriving benefit from some
>past incidence, then I think there's still basis for grievance,
>responsibility, & reparation.

You have to establish that people in Britain today really are
deriving benefit actions in the past, or from present day
injustice, before you can talk in terms of grievance and reparation.
This is perhaps best examined by considering separately the
cases of the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland.

Republic of Ireland
-------------------

This is a small country of about 3 to 3.5 million inhabitants.
In recent years, there has been a healthy surplus in the
balance of payments.  There is still however a large ratio
of foreign dept to GDP as a result of excessive borrowing
for current expenditure in the late '70s and early '80s.
Imports and exports represent and unusually high percentage
of GDP.  The key issues of public policy are high unemployment,
a high rate of emigration, and a relatively high level of
personal taxation.

In financial terms, the Republic benefits substantially from
its membership of the EC.  This takes the form both of support
for agriculture from EC funds, and EC structural funds intended
to develop the economy so that it can compete successfully in the
Single Market.  The level of structural funding agreed at the
EC summit in Edinburgh last weekend is estimated to amount to
7 or 8 billion Irish pounds spread over 7 years.  While the
Republic benefits financially from the EC, Britain is a net
contributor, and has sought, and obtained, agreement to place
a ceiling on its EC budget contributions for the next few years.
Nevertheless, Britain currently contributes, through the EC, to
the development of the economy of the Republic.

   Looking at the balance of payments in more detail, there
Ireland runs a deficit on trade with Britain (not large in
proportion to the volume of trade), and a surplus on trade
with the remainder of the EC, and with the rest of the world.
A lot of the components used in the manufacture of Irish
goods are however made in Britain, and Ireland has established
niches in areas such as the manufacture of tennis balls and
computer equipment, and in areas such as keying in data for
American companies and government agencies.  It seems to me
to be difficult to use the trade situation to argue that
Britain is exploiting the economy of the Republic at the
present time.

   Ireland is, and should remain, a fertile recruiting
ground for young well-educated, English-speaking personnel,
many of whom already have experience of working in Britain
through vacation jobs.  The difference in demographic profile
for the two countries suggests that Ireland will remain
important to Britain in this regard for the next decade
at least.  However, to use this fact to justify assertions
that Ireland is being unfairly exploited by Britain in
this regard, you must provide evidence that the policies
of the British government are designed to prevent the
Irish economy developing so as provide jobs for all its
young people at home.

As regards unemployment, Britain has over the past decades
provided employment for Irish migrants, and also continues
to provide unemployment benefit for those in Britain seeking
work.  Providing employment opportunities in this way for
those unable to find work at home surely benefits Irish
families on balance, though emigration is hardly the most
favoured option for many of those concerned.

In the last century, when the south of Ireland still formed
part of the United Kingdom, the dominant industries in
Britain were coalmining, steel-making, ship-building and
textile manufacture.  A casual reading of posts in s.c.b.
should be enough to convince any outsider that these
industries are dead, or are apparently in terminal decline.
Such wealth that Britain currently enjoys derives from
industries that were undreamt of at the time of the Union.

It could be argued that many of the stately homes in Britain,
most of them currently owned by the National Trusts, were
built partly with rents deriving from Ireland.  Maybe in
fairness, ownership of a certain proportion of these homes
should be vested in the Irish government, who would also
undertake responsibility for their maintenance!

Northern Ireland
----------------

In the case of Northern Ireland, to establish who benefits
from the continuing union, one should look at the fiscal
position.

When the Stormont government was established back in the
1920s, it was agreed that NI would make a agreed contribution
to the Imperial exchequer to pay for `services' such as
national defence, and that the remainder of the tax revenues
would be used by the Stormont government for its domestic
expenditure.

Within a few years it was discovered that the `Imperial
contribution' was soaking up practically all the tax
revenues.  It was therefore agreed that domestic
expenditure would have first call on tax revenues
and the (tiny) remainder would be remitted to Britain.

After World War II, with the development of the
Welfare State, it was agreed that people in NI
should enjoy the same level of social security
(health care, pensions, unemployment benefit)
as people in Britain.  Since tax revenues generated
in NI were, and have since remained, insufficient
for this purpose, it was agreed that the shortfall
should be made up from tax revenue generated within
Great Britain.  The resulting transfers represent
several billion (i.e., thousand million) pounds
annually.  Thus in financial terms, and in terms
of loss of life amongst British soldiers and other
victims of IRA activities, Britain does not benefit
from the alleged `occupation' of Northern Ireland.
Personally, it seems difficult to envisage what,
(necessarily intangible) benefit is gained by Britain
from continued `occupation'.

Benefits to Britain from a Disunited Ireland
--------------------------------------------

The stated reason why NI remains part of the United
Kingdom, is that a majority of the population there
consider themselves British and wish to remain within
the United Kingdom.  One can argue till the cows come
home about whether the creation of NI in the first
place was justified, and whether its border was
just and appropriate, neverthess, as a political
entity, it has existed as a six-county unit for
70 years now.

In view of the financial parameters discussed above,
it is surely clear that Britain derives no financial
benefit from the continuance of NI within the UK.
Defence considerations were of course of great if
not paramount importance at the time of the 2nd
World War (or the `emergency', as it was termed
in the Republic).  Nevertheless the nature of
modern warfare has changed a lot, as has the global
political situation.  (The possibility of an attack
on Britain mounted by any western or central European
nation is surely inconceivable now.)

Nor would a united Ireland pose a military threat
to the UK.  A nation of 5 million people can hardly
pose a serious threat to a state of over 50 million
people.  Moreover relations between the British and
Irish governments would appear to be very cordial at
the present time; the two governments are in
constant contact over matters affecting EC affairs,
the situation in NI, and other matters.  (Of course
relations were not always so smooth in the time of
Mrs. Thatcher; but then Mrs. T. seems to have got
under the skin of an awful lot of people.)

Within the Republic itself, my impression is that people,
or at least that segment of the populace whose opinions
are reflected in the national media, are not looking
over their shoulders at Britain to the extent that
they used to.  This apparent reduction in the
preoccupation with things British is, to my mind,
a healthy development.  Moreover the recent severe
recession, and the collapse in the sterling exchange
rate, have presumably brought home to people here that
the solutions to Irish economic problems do not necessarily
lie across the water.

If Ireland were to be united on a basis of consent, then
a united Ireland would continue to enjoy good relations
with Britain, and would not pose any sort of threat to
either British or Irish interests.  The reason why this
is not in prospect is the rejection by the Unionist
community in NI of government from Dublin, and the
fact that Unionists constitute a majority of the
population up there.

DRW


Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.usa