I wish to begin by recognising the substantial work undertaken by the Government-led shared island initiative, the ESRI, academics and opinion leaders. Without that work, we simply could not have a debate of this quality. For anyone who genuinely wants to prepare for a united Ireland, a unified Ireland or a new and agreed Ireland - whatever terminology they prefer - this is the opportunity to move beyond rhetoric and into practical realities. People will not simply vote on history and identity; they will also weigh up the economic proposition before them, especially those we need to win a referendum. Much of the economic debate has, understandably, focused on two questions. The first is harmonisation and differences in taxation, social welfare, healthcare, education, pensions and public services, which would have to be reconciled. The second is the fiscal transfer from Britain, what replaces that subvention and what this could mean for our public finances. Whether you agree more with Professors FitzGerald, Morganroth or Doyle, these debates are necessary. They quantify the challenge and help define the scale of decisions that would have to be made. Occasionally, we also discuss the one-off costs of the transition itself - the administrative, legal and institutional costs of constitutional change. However, there is another side to this wider debate that receives far less attention, and that is the opportunity to build the strongest possible all-island economy; a market of more than 7 million people with strong ties to the UK, EU and international markets. This means designing this island for economic success, with stronger regional balance, strategic investment in infrastructure, better connectivity and full cross-Border growth, unlocking the potential of an integrated north-west region as one of our greatest opportunities for growth. It means recognising the economic synergies that exist across healthcare, education, transport and infrastructure, when they are planned on an all-island basis. It is incredibly frustrating that so much of the wider debate presents Northern Ireland as a fiscal liability rather than for its economic potential. I also find it deeply frustrating that Northern Ireland has missed out on so many opportunities compared to the South. Many of the economic gaps that will likely be highlighted in the wider debate as barriers to unification - productivity, earnings, disposable income, tax revenue and educational attainment - are not as inevitable as some would like us to believe. Research suggests the scale of those gaps are shaped by policy choices, which can be changed. The most striking report I read was Northern Ireland Productivity 2040, which identified areas where policy can make a difference, such as business performance, skills, institutions, health and well-being and investment in infrastructure. Most importantly, it argues these challenges are interconnected and require joined-up Government stable institutions and long-term decision-making. As I said last week, Brexit is not good for anybody. However, Northern Ireland has outperformed many UK regions since Brexit, helped by the competitive advantage created through dual access to the UK and EU goods markets under the Windsor Framework. More recent research suggests the productivity gap is narrowing. So much more could be done to avail of the opportunities and investment coming from dual market access. Economic outcomes are not fixed; policy matters and leadership matters. People in Northern Ireland have the same ambition, ability and entrepreneurial spirit as anyone anywhere else on this island. If we are serious about building a vision for a new and agreed Ireland, then prioritising the closure of economic gaps should be every bit as important as debating the need for preparedness and deadlines. If you believe in a united Ireland, then making Northern Ireland more prosperous, a better place to live and a more attractive proposition for the people who are undecided about how they would vote in this referendum should not be a secondary objective; it should be central to achieving a united Ireland. I wish to conclude by recalling that great economist of war, peace and reconstruction, J.M. Keynes, who said, "anything we can actually do, we can afford." He argued that national ambition should never be constrained by money. Yes, we need to work hard to quantify the costs of a united Ireland. The people who will ultimately decide on whether to unify deserve and demand that detail but cost must never be a barrier to opportunity or a break on ambition. I appeal to my colleagues again today, as I did last week, that we all must work together. Responsibility does not only lie with the Government of Ireland but also with anyone in a position of leadership to bring us closer to that vision we all want.

Sentiment score: 0.28