I had an interesting morning today. I travelled with a friend to Newry, where Dr Kurt Heubner of the University of British Columbia was talking about his study on the economic implications of Irish reunification.
His study has been public for about a year now, but since the occurrence of Brexit, the practical implications of partition vs reunification have become more pressing. Significantly Dr Heubner told his audience that since Brexit he has had quite a bit of emailed response to his study, both pro and anti. None of these, however, critically engaged with his study, which meant people liked it if they were nationalist/republicans (his study shows how, over an eight-year period, both the south and the north could benefit from reunification) and disliked it if they were unionist. None of those responding, however, addressed the study’s methodology or conclusions.
What does the study conclude? I’ll put the study up so you can see for yourself. In summary, his projections show considerable economic gains for all the people of Ireland, were Ireland to be reunited.
Since, as Dr Heubner says in the video clip, there are no other studies which engage with the economic implications of unity in the same depth and range, it seems to me a no-brainer that any discussion of a border referendum or partition more generally should start with this study. Until we look at the economic case for reunification (and yes, Virginia, there are other arguments for reunification), discussion is going to be without foundation.
This Canadian study is easily the most important economic research document to have emerged since the Good Friday Agreement. It’s time we moved further than ‘We depend on the British subvention’ or ‘Reunification would eliminate replication’ and try to project what benefits reunification might have. And as Dr Heubner said this morning, we now really should look in similar detail at how the present state of partition benefits us – or costs us.
Here’s my brief chat with Dr Heubner.
Here’s the link to Heubner’s study:
http://prcg.com/modeling-irish-unification/report.pdf
A non-peer-reviewed paper, commissioned by Friends of Sinn Fein, whose premise is based on implementing right-wing economic policies as opposed by Sinn Fein!
Wrong for sure in first statement (what we call in academia a lie). Evidence for second claim? What premise are you speaking of? And which right-wing policies in the study are you referring to?
“Wrong for sure in first statement (what we call in academia a lie).”
If that’s the case you’ll be able to tell me which peer-reviewed journal it has been published in.
“Evidence for second claim?”
Read this.
http://sluggerotoole.com/2015/11/21/when-is-an-independent-study-on-irish-unification-not-independent/
“What premise are you speaking of? And which right-wing policies in the study are you referring to”
The premise that the republic will match £9bn UK funding of NI, which could only be afforded by slashing public services in the South. Also reduced public spending in NI.
Jude, you accused me of being a liar because I said the research hadn’t been peer reviewed. Now, I wasn’t lying because I don’t believe it has been peer reviewed. If it has been (and I a don’t believe it has), then I will have been mistaken, but I won’t have lied. I think you should apologise.
In response to your accusation I asked you to cite in which peer-reviewed journal the research had been published. I note that you haven’t replied. Is that because it hasn’t been peer-reviewed and published in a journal? In which case, not only was I not lying, but I wasn’t mistaken. And it is you, in fact, who would be mistaken.
Jude, would you ever have the decency/integrity to apologise for wrongly calling me a liar?
And we’re still waiting for you to tell us in which peer-reviewed journal this research has been published.
The usual and predictable reply from MT. In this case attacking the study and the people who made it instead of challenging the content because it disagrees with his politics.
I’m surprised (well, not really) to see Gio going down the same route.
If this study was made by the British Government and it showed the Union was good for the North of Ireland (yep, an economy that is dependent on cheap, low paying jobs like Call Centres is good for us all, isn’t it?….) would Gio or MT be attacking it? We know the answer to that. It does after all agree with their politics, the truth is irrelevant.
“The usual and predictable reply from MT. In this case attacking the study and the people who made it instead of challenging the content because it disagrees with his politics.”
The report has no credibility. The only people taking it seriously are SF and naive Irish-nationalist dreamers. If the DUP commissioned a paper that couldn’t get published in a peer-reviewed journal and the conclusions were thst NI was better off in the UK, would you take it seriously?
As for the content it’s based on hopelessly optimistic and unrealistic assumptions, some.of which aren’t even dependent on unity.
“If this study was made by the British Government and it showed the Union was good for the North of Ireland (yep, an economy that is dependent on cheap, low paying jobs like Call Centres is good for us all, isn’t it?….) would Gio or MT be attacking it? We know the answer to that. It does after all agree with their politics, the truth is irrelevant.”
The irony of this comment is priceless.
Ryan
The problem for me is that the study makes a number of assumptions in order to model its scenarios.
That is clearly stated.
When that kind of uncertainty is introduced then the possibilty of human error or bias even unintentional bias can creep in.
That is why the sponsorship of the research is relevant.
This blog is littered almost daily with attacks on various elements in the media frequently resorting to personal abuse rather than focusing on the content of their articles.
If you doubt that I will be happy to point you to a few examples.
I do not see you or Jude raising any objection in those cases.
Perhaps this research is sound, we don’t really know. They did not predict Brexit so I am not sure how much faith we can put in their modelling.
Either way I see no reason to obscure the funding behind it, something I would have thought you would be all in favour of.
“When that kind of uncertainty is introduced then the possibilty of human error or bias even unintentional bias can creep in.” Dear God. Gio – all research proceeds on assumptions – that’s how progress is made or cul-de-sacs identified. Of course there’s a danger of personal bias entering in – that’s humanity for you. “Perhaps this research is sound, we don’t really know. They did not predict Brexit so I am not sure how much faith we can put in their modelling.” – Sweet suffering Saviour. Did anyone predict Brexit? And the research makes clear the starting point and assumptions it makes. “Perhaps this research is sound, we don’t really know”. Well if you read it and knew anything about research, you might be able to make a judgement. That’s what’s the issue, not its funding. I know it’s tempting, gio, but you really shouldn’t try to shoot the messenger instead of reading his message.
Jude
Pardon my stupidity.
Research may be based on assumption r hypotheses which data can then verify.
But in this type of research it cannot be verified, and the assumptions cannot be tested until the time when we actually have a United Ireland. Surely that is obvious.
This research is basically predicted scenarios based on certain assumptions (as you agree) and I think that makes it harder to subject to any kind of rigour.
That I am sure is why MT asked about it being peer reviewed.
You challenged his assertion that it was not peer reviewed but you never said where it was!
I mention Brexit as it is a perfect example of why we should not put too much stock in this kind of futuring. Events dear boy!
I cannot believe the funding is completely immaterial to you given that you are usually at pains to draw attention to who is behind news stories opinion polls etc.
Finally your comment about shooting the messenger gave me a chuckle. Shooting the messenger is normally the first response here to any story that is in any way critical of SF.
“is based on implementing right-wing economic policies as opposed by Sinn Fein”
Forgot to add, MT, that SF have adopted some right wing policies in recent years. For example, they oppose rising Corporation Tax in the South, whilst other left and far left groups in the South want it increased. Just recently they are planning on scrapping the “industrial wage” in the party itself. Left wing critics of SF have condemned for increasingly going to the right but that’s what they have had to do because most people in Ireland are centre ground, not left wing.
Scotland is certainly left wing, England is mostly right wing but Ireland is centre ground to slightly left or right in places. Hence why Fine Gael and Fianna Fail have dominated politics in the South for decades.
Study sponsored by friends of Sinn Fein produces result that pleases Sinn Fein.
Who would have believed that would happen!
Evidence for claim, please, gio? And btw, I disassociate myself entirely from your claim (just so the judge knows)
Jude
We have been through this before. I am using material published and not subject to legal action as far as I know, on Slugger quite some time ago.
There are numerous links detailing the connection between Ciaran Scally,the registered agent for Knights of the Red Branch, the organisation which commissioned the research.
Scally is shown to be a friend of Sinn Fein quite clearly.
Here is the link if you are interested,although I suspect you are not.
http://sluggerotoole.com/2015/11/21/when-is-an-independent-study-on-irish-unification-not-independent/
Why are you being so heavy handed? It has been in the public domain for some time.
You may disassociate yourself now but the judge might want to know why you did not disassociate yourself in April when you allowed the same claim to go unchallenged.
Do you really want to be breaking rocks while chained to me?
To your last question, even were it picking daisies, gio, NO. You think it heavy-handed to ask someone to back up a claim? Here’s an idea: write to the good Dr and tell him what you’ve told this site. I think it might be interesting to see what follows.
Jude
What have I told this site ?
What is defamatory?
Why did you not take it down in April?
It is not heavy handed to ask for evidence (which I have provided) but waving judges at me is completely over the top.
Did you even read the link?
Dr. Kurt Heubner belongs to a long and admirable tradition, Esteemed Blogmeister, of formidable German academics who have brought their detached expertise to bear on matters Irish.
The name of Dr. Kuno Meyer comes to mind: he was a pioneering scholar of Celtic Studies in the 1890s who became such a corner stone of the Celtic Revival that he was made a Freeman of both Dublin and Cork.
That his name was subsequently removed from the rolls with some dispatch and in high dudgeon is a tale for another day, but one mentions it in the hope the same sorry fate does not await the economic delving of Dr. Heubner.
One would not be, alas, performing cartwheels with optimism. Certainly, if one is to go by the handstanding antics of the Socrates of Serious Broadcasting in the South on the topic of Partition in the last week when he had a Shinner in his cross-hairs.
Normally as bland as a manned studio gadget of canned laughter Pat Kenny (for it was he !) wasn’t long veering towards the sneer when he contrasted the policies (perceived) of SF north of the Black Sow’s Dyke with those of the same party south of the BSD.
To steer his argument towards its leery point Patronising Pat reached for ………the report of Dr. Kurt Heubner, ? Well, actually, no. Despite the fact that Germany was the home of the Brothers Grimm. Rather did he smartly shake his magic black baton to produce this bouquet of colourful paper roses:
-But, ha, ha, you SF lot in Northern Ireland, have, hee hee, a Fairy Godmother to stuff your pockets with, ho, ho, dosh so that you are always awash with the folding stuff.
In fairness, going backward, it must be allowed that nobody is better equipped to expatiate with ingratiating authority on Fairy Godmothers whether it be on airy mountainside or down in rushy glen itself , than PK. Who is, (genuflect), the White Airwaved Boy of the Fairy Godfather of DOBland, going forward.
It might be mentioned in passing that he omitted to name which of the two Dames he had in mind when he benchmarked the Fairy Godmother: whether it was the Hausfrau in Buck Schloss or the Bossy Boots in Uimhir a Deich.
(Whether the Fairy rhymes with Tessie May or the Deutsch Butch, is a topic one would prefer not to broach with Diamond Lil : the Dworkin Class in DOBland, alas, is still manned by Keyhole Kates ).
Of course, the economic argument for or against a United Ireland, whether pre- or post- Brexit would not matter an old brown penny if the Yunes of Norneveland (in which are included the Castle Caths from Ballycastle to Castlewellan via Castlederg ) took a half day off, long enough to stand on the Halfpenny Bridge which spans the Liffey.
Upon the banks of which is straddled the city voted consistently by Tourist Guides, year on year, as the most Accommodating City on, erm, the Lonely Planet.
And then, explain just what part of Accommodating they do not understand.
To consider just three sub-questions which this big q. begs:
1.What part of Hackommodating do they not understand? One need only toss in The Unionist Times whose guest columnist from Norneverland aka The Man who is Thursday is invariably there to whistle the hackneyed tunes of the Yune.
2. What part of Sackommodating do they not understand? As long ago as this very morning the sacked leader of the (gasp) Labour Party of Ireland was hyperventilating on RTE about Ireland in a post-Brexit world. The former Yawnaiste (for it was she !) brolleyed the leader of the Fianna Fail Better Party which is affiliated to the Centrist Democtatic International.
-This affiliation considers that this country (by which she meant the Free Southern Stateen) was still a part of the United Kingdom !
Ah, to think that it is not so long ago that He and She formed such a formidable and enduring alliance; seemingly, no pre-ruptural agreement signed there. So sad all the same to see good gravy trains feel the strain.
3. What part of union Jackommodating do they not understand? Take a gawk inside those twin towers of theatricality: the Abbey and Christchurch. For the past six weeks in the former they could have eye- witnessed the morphing of the (gulp) National Theatre into a re-imagination of The Stonebreakers’ Yard in which P. Pearse has been riddled with ridicule by the Sons of Ulster marching towards the Huns of Munster.
Take then a gawk inside the cloistered confines of Christchurch where they will see those emblems of Empah whose spirits never flag : the frayed, having been rescued from the fray, Unions Jacks. And in both Edifices of the Establishment are to be heard chanted, in the key of the kingdom, both as matins and evensong:
-Ooh, ah, Up the RA, sing ooh, ah, up the RA.
Linguistic note: RA in the Free Southern Stateen is an acronym for the Leprechaun: Riocht Aontaithe.
Which, as any Acrommating Crooked Mouth will obligingly translate as:
-United Kingdom.
PS Off now to the Dublin watering hole, with the statue of an Injun Brave on a piebald pony outside, the successor of Bartley ‘Darkly’ Dunne’s moral pub : Brexit for the Border.
-Mine’s a wee Ambush.
Perkin – you have reduced me to helpless yips of merriment. So much, such profusion, so regularly! Love this little lad particularly:
” For the past six weeks in the former they could have eye- witnessed the morphing of the (gulp) National Theatre into a re-imagination of The Stonebreakers’ Yard in which P. Pearse has been riddled with ridicule by the Sons of Ulster marching towards the Huns of Munster.”
WANW (We Are Not Worthy)
PS Was about to mention, EB, how the Somme Enchanted Evenings for the wee six weeks just gone in the Abbey was actually THE official (!) theatrical contribution to the 1916 Commemoration.
And how courageously appropriate it was of the Ootemawlers of the National Theatre to put on a black comedy to celebrate that farcical kick up the Arse of Empah.
The reason why one didn’t was because one was otherwise engaged in the enumeration of one’s small blessings.
They could have easily done otherwise, but opted not to. They spared us, at least, for the delectation of K. Myers a postmodern sitcom on K.Meyer and set in the mire of wee Mons. With the moolah-making scam which is the Leprechaun Revival as its target:
-Kuno and the Paycheck.
You sure do meet some interesting people Jude, Dr Heubner seems like an interesting guy to have a chat with. May I suggest Jude if you want to follow up and do more blogs/videos on the economics of Irish Unity that you contact the economist and author David McWilliams. He was in St Mary’s University on the Falls Road a few weeks ago and I think a chat between you and him would be very interesting on Irish Unity, the economic, social, etc benefits of that or any potential downsides to Irish Unity. Indeed McWilliams wrote just a few weeks ago on Irish Unity and made the case that the people in the North are permanently economically disadvantaged whilst being part of the Union. McWilliams described NI being in the Union as a “disaster” for its people and I don’t think many could disagree with that. I think a chat with McWilliams would be extremely interesting.
Brexit has changed everything. Ireland, both North and South, has benefitted immensely from EU membership. I read an article last year where it said of all the countries in the EU, only Poland has benefitted more from EU membership than Ireland. I don’t know if that’s true but I think Ireland is certainly in the top 10 countries to have benefited the most from EU membership. But that’s over now for the North. Indeed its already been made clear that the North will suffer the most from brexit than other regions of the UK. No more peace funding. No more farm payments. Potentially no more access to the single market. No more EU investment. I could go on. And if some people are foolish enough to think London cares one iota about the North then they are deluded. Theresa May only cares about the South of England, she doesn’t give a hoot about the North of England or Scotland, so what chance does the poor paddies in the North of Ireland have? Brexit has even put the peace agreement in danger. All this has renewed interest and discussion in regard to Irish Unity.
One thing nationalists must do in order to make any transition to Irish Unity easier or more attractive (especially for people in the South) is to shrink our public sector and grow our private sector. We need to attract more foreign investment and good jobs, especially in areas where its needed the most. We also need to get as many powers out of London and onto this island. The SF Finance Minister already wants borrowing powers. Due to the promises made by the Westminster government to Scotland in the 2014 indy ref, it looks like more and more powers will be leaving Westminster and going to Stormont, potentially even Devo Max.
We don’t know how much the block grant is because according to some sources the British Government wont release the figures, why? well we can only speculate. Some people, usually Unionists, often point to the block grant and childishly say: ” see? we cant afford Irish Unity”. Not only is that attitude pathetic, its also insulting to English tax payers. We have to learn to stand on our own two feet in the long term, whether we’re in the UK or not. I’m not casting this up to insult anyone but it was Harold Wilson that described Unionists as “spongers” on a live TV address. When you look at the expenses list last year at Westminster and the two MP’s names at the very top its very hard to disagree with him……no wonder the DUP are devout Unionists…..
When it comes to Irish Unity, I stand with commentator Chris Donnelly when he said: “If border poll was held 3 years ago or tomorrow morning, I would bet my house at least 35% would vote for Irish Unity”. Now that’s before any economic/social benefits are preached.
As David McWilliams said: “A Nation once again? it could be closer than you think…..”
http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2016/05/16/daily-note-a-nation-once-again-dont-write-it-off
That is a well-reasoned essay by an economist , Michael, but the reality is that many do not want to consider these scenarios. They are driven by some quite primitive fears which have little to do with economics or even “reality”.To think about those possibilities frightens them, no matter their veracity.
If we were talking(arguing) about the re-unificating of Ireland dispassionately there would have to b e a model such as this one done. In thoat context it would not actually matter about an individual’s politics …whether he was of British Unionist or Irish Unionist persuasion.The “facts “would be the very same “facts”. in that respect British Unionism’s abhorrence to even the idea of thinking about such a scenario is a head-in-the -sand , ostrich -like reaction.We have to get past that attitude. if academic facts pan out , it doesn’t actually matter who sponsored the research…..that is if the “facts” have not been tweaked to suit the sponsor’s agenda.
Letus assume that the facts here are honest facts and not some mirage that has been made up to frighten British Unionism and buff up the irish Nationalist story. That might be a start.
For example….Charles Darwin had some problems with the idea of “Evolution” and subsequently his “Origin of the Species”. It wasn’t with the “facts”. To his friends, himself and I think his immediate family, he might have preferred that his conclusions about our “real” origin state …as opposed to the imagined version that had become a huge part of the Christian culture, pointed him in the direction of the “fact” of an inter-connected world of animals with no special place in it for one specific species..(ie…humans). He might have preferred the cosy world of Man(god’s particular creature looking after All creatures Great And Small)… and all the lesser animals …..but the “facts” got in the way.
The same kind of thing happened to Galileo Galilei when he finally discovered to the abhorrence of Church’s teachings that the Earth was not the centre of the universe and therefore of great importance to all things, but was actually a rather insignificant anamoly orbiting an average star. His findings were put on the Inquisition’s” Index of Forbidden Books” , from which it was not removed until 1835 (after the theories it discussed had been permitted in print in 1822)In an action that was not announced at the time, the publication of anything else he had written or ever might write was also banned in Catholic countries. Those are the dispassionate “facts” which had huge repercussions for thevery idea of the Church and any of the various satellite religions which had peeled off the One True Church in the meantime.it didn’t change any of his “facts” in any way or how he came to reason them out.
i’m not saying that this study is necessarily on the same scale as Darwin or Galileo , but it does show that many will close their eyes to the “truth” of things and in many, many cases will not even think those ” impure “thoughts in case it somehow contaminates their steady worldview..
Darwin’s “Origin Of The Species” and the theory of evolution offer a scientific explanation as to how organisms evolved over the different eons of the earth’s history but ultimately they do not shed any meaningful light on the whys and wherefores. Your dismissive and ill-thought out description of the Christian take on this topic as an “imagined version” is just your opinion and is not based on “facts”. Saint John Paul the Great, a man who believed firmly in the combination of Faith(Fides) and Reason(Ratio) to approach the major existential questions, stated that evolution was not in conflict with Christian doctrine as it did not in itself constitute an anti-theist position. Even a man of scientific genius like Einstein conceded that there was an intelligent purpose behind the universe .
The famous 16thc Galileo episode arose when the scientist put forward claims(later proven) about the revolution of the earth around the sun which challenged the age-old Ptolemaic model. He also had strayed into the territory of scripture which he had no great competency on and this particularly invoked the rage of churchmen. This Church could have handled this matter a lot better and St John Paul apologized for it during his Pontificate.
When taken in combination, Darwin’s theory or the heliocentric model of the earth’s orbit around the sun do not really undermine the religious conviction that a supernatural deity was responsible for the existence of the cosmos, the earth and all who dwell/dwelt on it. When all is said and done, science can only deal with the material universe and does not have the tools to begin to answer the burning questions of human existence and our place in the cosmological scheme of things. One can try and use Science as the only gauge(which a lot of atheists tend to do) but this would be a case of blind faith and in reality other disciplines/belief systems like Religion or Philosophy are better placed to deal with the spiritual realities of our existence.
That is interesting, Georoid. I’m absolutely sure …and it’s borne out by the numbers who believe in the existence of a god, a variety of gods or the possibility of another realm or plane of existence ,somehow existing or bleeding into the seemingly “solid reality” we all think we live in(We don’t) , that many are constantly consoled by thoughts like this. That very idea that a human “personal life” has greater meaning than that of a less -sentient chicken or a cockroach, is very attractive to the ego, but there is no actual “proof” to that specific claim , no matter how it is dressed up or dreamed. That kind of thing can be a balm for the worried mind.It doesn’y mean that it is real in any way. There are many ways we as a species could have come up with an imaginative belief -system like that, but there is not one scrap of proof to hold any of it together .That’s why it’s called “faith”. It is literally a belief in something that nothing is known about .Now, that is perfectly fine if that suits a personal mind. My own mother had great”faith”, for example and she lived a blameless life and was devoted to a Christian ideal. It suited her personality in every way, but it was not necessarily a truth.Had she had an upbringing in some other circumstances , elsewhere in the world, her belief -system may have been radically different.She may have been a Buddhist or believed in spirits reincarnating into creatures and plants..Like i say , there is no worldly proof of any of that at all. I prefer to believe in what i actually “know” or what can be proven by a series of logical steps.Darwin , for example, was somewhat squeamish as to where his own theories were logically leading him in that he’d lost a child and and he had a wife who was very traditionally religious .To turn away from the idea of “everlasting life” in some unknown after-life (which would have been the norm in his day) meant to turn his back on ever seeing his wife or child in that very same afterlife and accepting the reality of human finiteness. In many cases it is those kinds of beliefs that sustain a need for an afterlife and it is those kinds of thoughts that sustain a belief in something beyond our natural lifespan.Many are not going to give up on that dream and it can be a necessary dream for many in dire straits or in some invidious plight, but none of that means it is necessarily true.The bottom line is that there has never been any proof at all.
So we live in a world where many people across the planet, in a variety of different cultures, believe some very odd things ,as can be researched through the thousands of religions and belief-systems that many adhere to . The bottom line is that you’ve got to understand just why these belief systems work and what their origin story is. …how they evolve from one thing to another throughout the ages to suit the current society which sustains them .As you say, in Ptolomy’s version of the cosmos’s heliocentrism arose from Biblical references or astrological (sooth-saying , if you like)…ideas of his times, stating that the world is firmly established and it cannot be moved or that the Lord set the earth on its foundations and it can never be moved. That was neat and simple, but it was based on the knowledge of its time which was not accurate or true and incorporating the Biblical idea of earth’s “special place” .Careful study has since led us to the point and knowledge we have now of our existence.Everything else is faith in the unknown and is at best wishful thinking. That’s not to disparage wishful thinking , because everyone who buys a lottery ticket has that very same impulse, even though the odds of winning are akin to trying to eat the moon with a spoon.