Is Varadkar right that every party should make a united Ireland an objective? Conor O’Malley and Fergus O’Dowd debate

The only way we can have a peaceful prosperous united Ireland is by convincing a significant majority on the island to vote in favour. It needs significant consent, particularly among our unionist communities.
For a millennium, Dublin has been the centre of power in Ireland. I personally believe that should change with a successful Border poll. A true federal republic should cede power to regions, major cities and towns with powerful accountable local government vested in elected councils advised by, but not controlled by, officials.
Our committee believes intensive research, planning and preparation should begin now, so yes, I believe Leo Varadkar is right to say that unity should be an objective, not an aspiration. The resounding success of the Belfast Agreement has brought lasting peace to our island. The subsequent significant growth in cross-Border trade which has increased from €2 billion in 1998 to €12 billion in 2022 is remarkable.
A united Ireland would ensure full EU market access for Northern Ireland, seamless trade and integration on our island, reverse the negative impact of Brexit and restore substantial EU investment in the North, and enhance productivity and economic growth. The North would become more attractive for FDI, increasing demand for workers with higher skills sets and third-level qualifications, reversing the continuing significant outflow of talented young graduates.
We acknowledge the hugely important work of the Shared Island unit which is examining the political, social, economic and cultural considerations of our shared future without prejudice to the constitutional future of the island. Budget 2025 is a golden opportunity to provide significant additional funding to support Shared Island projects.
The economic dividend of the Belfast Agreement has been largely concentrated in the South. OECD data showed a significant prosperity gap North and South in disposable household income of 12 per cent in favour of the South in 2017. The proportion of persons at risk of poverty in Northern Ireland was 14.3 per cent compared with 8.9 per cent in the South. In 2018, life expectancy at birth in the South exceeded that of Northern Ireland by 1.4 years. We had similar productivity levels in 1998 but now the South is 40 per cent more productive per hours worked.
Structural gaps in education and health in Northern Ireland will continue without very significant funding which, if identified and planned for, would make a huge difference prior to a Border poll.
Having a single healthcare system should lead to economies of scale while improving specialisation and development of centres of excellence in healthcare. The developing all-Ireland cancer strategy is a blueprint for enhanced co-operation North and South. Both jurisdictions presently face complex challenges in their respective healthcare systems. In education, we support increased co-operation on further and higher education, reducing barriers to cross-Border student enrolment, and improving closer co-operation on apprenticeships and training.
The actual cost of unity is contested, and estimates vary considerably. There must be total clarity on the true cost of unity, and intensive research must continue. A fully costed whole-of-government approach, including all departments and State agencies, is certainly required. The publication of a comprehensive Green Paper is essential if we are to persuade voters North and South in favour of unity. The widest possible consultation, using citizens’ assemblies, national economic dialogue and the Shared Island dialogues, is now essential. The Irish Government must address the profound consequences for politics, taxation, health, education, social welfare and pensions. We must listen to, understand and include the perspectives of all communities on this island.
Preparations for the possibility of constitutional change must be underpinned by listening to, understanding and including the perspectives of all communities on this island. Our approach should be guided by the spirit of John Hume who said: “Ireland is not a romantic dream; it is not a flag; it is 4.5 million people divided into two powerful traditions. The solution will be found not on the basis of victory for either, but on the basis of agreement and a partnership between both. The real division of Ireland is not a line drawn on the map, but in the minds and hearts of its people.”
Fergus O’Dowd is chairman of the joint committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement
The adjective “united” means the ownership of the whole island by one State, ours. From a unionist vantage point, this is a continuing boulder in the way of collaboration. When I worked in the North South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in the early days, sovereignty concerns led to high-level vetoes on just about everything, albeit with adverse effects mitigated by doggedly optimistic officials on both sides. The daily, ordinary operationally efficient working of the secretariat just could not grow organically. The Irish association’s recent seminar at Queen’s [University Belfast] on the working of the NSMC over the 25 years described the boulder as “the absence of the scaffolding of implementation”. The boulder of competing sovereignties is still there.
The objective should be for the southern political parties simply to commit to substantially strengthen and proactively deepen official and institutional connections North and South at all levels: old-fashioned, joined-up thinking and with the framework of an embedded, whole-of-government approach.
Greater collaboration is a useful, intrinsic and worthy end in its own right. Let’s start out getting little things right. There are plenty of these around when you start to look: for instance, encouraging artists to visit each other, North and South, by paying travel costs. We have a system that facilitates artists from all across the island to visit Australia, but not Armagh. We need to simplify rules for those bodies already trying to function in the two parts of the island by recognising long-established registered charities established in the North. We need a scheme to offset the cost of VAT for a southern charity operating in the North. And how about southern bodies accepting just to measure their carbon emissions when generated over the Border?
Outcomes at central government level and referenda are clearly not enough to ensure that they will work out well or at all, in practice. Towards that, an objective should be the strengthening of avenues for civil dialogue, between North and South. As citizens’ assemblies have demonstrated in Ireland and elsewhere, informed public involvement is a help to policymaking and make citizens feel involved. So, let’s implement the Belfast Agreement’s neglected Common Chapter.
The united Ireland objective should be seen as an open-ended project, amenable to conceptual remoulding as evidence leads. As with any objective, support the taking of targeted risks; try out pilot models; study what problems arise; work to overcome them, painstakingly, one by one.
And just like the operational manager whose job it is to come up with a timetable for the new Enterprise train service, with tweaking, it’ll get there.
Another objective would be for officials to be encouraged to spot opportunities for deepening North-South collaborations. The boulder of “not at all within our role” runs really deep throughout officialdom in many line departments. The problem especially affects semi-State bodies whose remits are set out by statute. It’s time those remits were explicitly broadened territorially to include the North. An expanded territorial remit needs to be helped with new funding streams. Increased funding and staffing of long-starved North-South bodies would be a must; as would affording, on a subsidiary principle, much more operational flexibility to the NSMC secretariat itself.
The Shared Island initiative is a positive and pragmatic workaround while boulders remain. A commitment to expanding its funding and reach should be made by all political parties; at the same time, accompanied by an expanded system of accountability. That system would be authorised to measure how the application of any such funds assists the intrinsic objective of the scheme.
The political objective of a united Ireland needs to be approached in conjunction with all the others. Otherwise, sadly, that objective will remain a hollow construct: a reminder of former bad times when slogans and stirring rhetoric were enough to reassure voters of progress. Hopefully, not any more.
Conor O’Malley is a retired civil servant and Secretary of the Irish Association.