Fortnight Publications Ltd.

Now Let's Get down to Plastic EcusAuthor(s): Jacques MacneeSource: Fortnight, No. 306 (May, 1992), p. 4Published by: Fortnight Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25553410 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 08:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Fortnight Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Fortnight.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:02:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Now let's

get down

to plastic

ecus

Mon cher ami,

Sorry for the long silence, but what with Irish protocols and other ex

otica, the European agenda has been some

what crowded these past months. Now I see

we have to take some more of your peculiar ideas on board.

George Quigley has been promoting the idea of Ireland as an "island economy" and

wants the European Community to recognise it as such. Support for his general thesis has come from the Northern Ireland govern ment (via the now-departed Lord Belstead), from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and from various commentators.

Specifically, Dr Quigley was suggesting that the EC allocate a "block of resources to the island, for allocation by agreement be

tween the two governments on a basis agreed with the EC". In a subsequent interview he

spelt it out a bit more. Both north and south, he said, assuming a devolved authority in the north, "as equal partners could negotiate a

block of resources for the island".

This is all very interesting and positive, but it makes the chair of the Ulster Bank sound a bit like the Social Democratic and Labour leader, John Hume?and both of them, in this case, a few ecus short of a grant.

For a start, the island of Ireland is not one

economy but two. Certainly, there is scope for

much greater economic co-operation between

the two parts, for more integrated economic

and social planning. But even with that there

would still be two economies.

Certainly, too, the European Community would like to see such cooperation, and has

indeed already allocated modest funding to

encourage it. But an economy consists of the

whole range of economic activities within an

area plus its various inputs and outputs. What

makes the Northern Ireland economy very

different, and quite distinct from the repub lic's economy, is the annual net input of up to

?2,000 million from the UK exchequer. This fact alone makes it almost impossible

for the EC to treat the economy ofthe island as

one. If you take the current allocations from

the structural funds?leaving aside farm sup

port under the Common Agricultural Policy? Northern Ireland gets ?550 million for the

period 1989-93, while the republic gets ?2,570 million. The regional policy commissioner, Bruce Millan, has repeatedly said he sees

nothing unfair about that: the republic is a

small weak economy, while Northern Ireland

is part of a large and relatively prosperous

economy. (From which it gets some ?2,000 million a year, which makes even the repub

lic's EC rake-off petites pommes de terre, as

we say in Brussels.) How then could Brussels have one budget

for Ireland? How could the island be treated as

one for EC-aid purposes? How, for that mat

ter, could north and south as equal partners

negotiate a block of resources with Brussels

?since one is a member state and the other is

a small region of a member state, and ulti

mately only member state governments nego tiate such deals with Brussels? Ah, says Dr

Quigley, Ireland is a special case. Mon vieux, as you and he well know, the European Com

munity is a Community of Special Cases?all so special they have to be treated equally according to the rules.

Dr Quigley was careful to say that none of

his suggestions could come about if there were "political agendas, overt or hidden". He

might as well not have bothered, for the next

day his proposals were branded by one loyal ist group as "part of the hidden agenda of the

Anglo-Irish accord" and as "text-book nation

alist dogma". And Douglas Hamilton

(Fortnight 305) welcomed his "refreshing" proposals?but added that, without funda

mental changes to political arrangements, the

benefits from them would be limited. So what political arrangements are to be

changed fundamentally? Is there a hidden

agenda after all?

The problem with discussing closer north

south ties within the European Community is that nationalists in the north talk as though the

EC was founded chiefly to provide an um brella for the unification of Ireland, and the

unionists believe them. This is a pity, for while it may not be widely perceived in Northern Ireland, the EC was founded for other reasons

entirely, one of which was to render obsolete

any ambitions to alter the political boundaries of Europe, and elirr mate quarrels that might flow therefrom.

Nevertheless, unionists should look again

at Dr Quigley' s * island economy'. They might

note that while he called for all sorts of north

south cooperation, including the setting up by the two governments of "machinery to assist

in establishing priorities for the strategic allo

cation of resources", he never once mentioned

the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Now, article 2 of

that agreement states that the Intergovern mental Conference established under it will

deal with four specific policy areas, number

four of which is "the promotion of cross

border co-operation". But Dr Quigley is talk

ing of something else: he wants the Euro-MPs

and the social partners involved.

This begins to sound like an idea floated in the 70s?an Economic Council of Ireland. It is

an idea whose time may be coming again. The

upcoming talks on Northern Ireland are all

about replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Mr Reynolds may pretend they will reopen the

question of partition, but they are essentially about finding a new agreement acceptable to

the unionists. Most unionists concede there

must be a substantial Irish dimension. As they will never accept the political input of the

republic as in the quasi-joint authority Hillsbor

ough accord, it would make sense for them to

deliver the absolute maximum on all sorts of

other cross-border matters, particularly the

economy. Economic commentators agree that there

are gains to be made, jobs to be created,

through stimulating commerce and trade within

the island. Opinions differ on how big these

gains might be, but most agree that economic

activity within the island is less than it should and could be. Unionists need to brush up their

image. What better than to present an entirely

positive face to the new secretary of state and

the resumed talks?maximum economic unity, as far as that is possible without changing the

political set-up? A joint British-Irish pitch towards the EC

for special funding is unlikely to yield mas sive dividends, and clearly the unionists and

sensible nationalists would not want to go down any road that might put in jeopardy the

vastly greater UK transfers. But, while guard

ing against that, the unionists could well af

ford to back calls for more EC funding for cross-border schemes.

The hard facts of European life are that EC funds will flow in far greater volume to a poor

member state like the republic, than they ever

will to a not-so-poor region of a reasonably

wealthy member state like the UK. But in an

integrating island economy, the north could

hope to share to a considerable degree in the

beneficial effects of EC aid to the republic, and might also hope to squeeze out additional resources for programmes and projects planned on an all-Ireland basis.

That way the unionists might get not just some ecus, but some badly-needed kudos. As

this latter is not yet within the European mon

etary system, mere might be considerable

speculative gains from such an investment.

A bientot,

Jacques Macnee

4 MAY FORTNIGHT

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:02:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions