I sincerely welcome the fact we are having this debate. Colleagues will recall that the matter to which it relates arose during questions to me in my role as Minister for Finance a number of months ago. A view was expressed to the effect that it would be worth having a debate on the matter. I am very pleased that we have been able to facilitate that debate in Government time today. I apologise that I will not be able to stay for the duration of the debate, but a number of Government colleagues will be here to participate. I was eager that we should have this discussion kicked-off before the summer recess. I am pleased that we have managed, as an Oireachtas, to facilitate that.

I am obviously committed, as I know everybody in this House is, to realising the full potential of the Good Friday Agreement for all the people of this island. At the core of that agreement is the principle of consent and the recognition that the future constitutional status of Northern Ireland rests in the hands of the people. That principle was democratically endorsed by the people of Ireland, North and South, and remains the foundation upon which progress is and should be built.

Guided by Article 3 of the Constitution as amended by the people in 1998, the Government's approach is to foster reconciliation, deepen relationships and prepare for the future through respectful dialogue and engagement. Thus, in the event of a referendum delivered within the consent provisions of the Good Friday Agreement, the Government will make all necessary preparations in accordance with the terms of the Constitution and the principles and procedures of the agreement.

One of the reasons we are having this debate is that when we had the parliamentary questions on finance to which I refer a number of months ago, there was a recognition that if and when - I believe it is when - there is a referendum, the big issues of debate are going to be the economy, the all-island economy, the cost involved and, I hope, the benefit that will accrue. While I doubt that we, collectively, will manage to answer every question during this debate, I hope we will certainly put on the record of the Dáil the information, insights and data that we have. I hope people will also refer to the further data that are required or the further work that we believe needs to be done.

Before getting into that, I will say the Government has maintained a sustained focus on reconciliation and trying to strengthen the three relationships at the heart of the Good Friday Agreement - relationships between communities in the North, between North and South and relationships east and west, between Ireland and Britain. By strengthening these relationships and fostering greater partnership and understanding, we can unlock the full potential of our island and create lasting opportunities for future generations. In Government, we have made this commitment real and tangible through the shared island initiative. Here, we prioritise the essential work of building co-operation and reconciliation and have brought about an ambitious agenda to deliver meaningful progress, while remaining steadfast in fully implementing the Good Friday Agreement and its potential.

To date, the Government has advanced the largest ever programme of all-island investment to build a more connected island through the shared island initiative, backed by a €2 billion fund. In April 2025, we launched a new phase of a joint research programme with the ESRI focusing on strategic policy and co-operation possibilities for the island. In December 2025, I launched the first report on what will now be a new annual ESRI series to analyse economic trends across the island. I think those comparative data, year on year, will be helpful. Overall, this Government continues and wants to continue to deepen our partnership with the Northern Ireland Executive and the UK Government in its role as coguarantor of the Good Friday Agreement. We are working to fully harness the agreement to foster reconciliation between the different communities of this island.

The topic of today's debate, the fiscal implications of a united Ireland, is one of the most important questions in any discussion about Ireland's future. I occupy a number of roles within Government and politics, including my role as leader of the Fine Gael Party, in which I have outlined my view and that of my party on the next steps we intend to take. I am speaking today in my role as Ireland's Minister for Finance.

The debate we need to have from a fiscal point of view needs to be informed by evidence and analysis on the opportunities and challenges that constitutional change may bring. Let me clear, and I think we have got to be clear and honest. If she does not mind me saying so, I heard Deputy McDonald asked about this on radio recently. People look for very clear and straightforward answers in relation to fiscal costs. We have got to be truthful about this, as the Deputy was. It remains highly uncertain because it is a very dynamic situation. That is the first point I wanted to make as Minister for Finance.

Recent studies on the impacts reach widely different conclusions. It is also important to acknowledge that. That is largely because they rely on a different set of assumptions. All of this is based on a set of assumptions and there is a whole variety of those assumptions. Which public spending obligations will transfer to the new Ireland? How would the tax code be applied? How might Northern Ireland's economy develop over the long term as part of a unified island? What will be the extent, if any, of ongoing UK fiscal commitments? I note the debate and discussion around that.

For example, to give some sense of the range of data we have heard, a study by Dublin City University, DCU, and Ulster University estimated last year that reunification could carry and initial net fiscal cost of around €3 billion per annum for the Irish State, which I am calling Ireland. The same study also suggested, however, that a unified economy could reach a fiscal break-even within five to nine years, assuming Northern Ireland's reintegration into the EU and considerable productivity improvements in the North.

On the other hand, and perhaps at the other end of the spectrum, research published by the Institute of International European Affairs in 2024 presents, from a purely fiscal point of view, a much more pessimistic outlook. It projects annual costs of up to €20 billion for the Irish State for up to two decades. Its assumptions are driven by the need to align welfare, pensions and public service pay across the island, as well as the loss of funding from the UK's central government. My own Department published a report called Shared Island, Shared Economy in 2024. It found that the Northern Ireland-specific fiscal deficit - that is to say, total expenditure in the North less total tax revenue raised in the North - was in the region of around £7 billion sterling in 2020.

However, too often the debate begins and ends with estimates of simple fiscal transfers or of headline costs of transition to a unified island. These are, of course, important considerations and they must be honestly addressed. They should be put out there and scrutinised but they are only part of a much larger economic picture. The question is not simply what a united Ireland could cost but what it could create. One of the most significant opportunities, I believe, lies in services. Services account for the overwhelming majority of economic activity across these islands, yet Northern Ireland currently sits outside the EU Single Market for services. Constitutional change would provide businesses across the island with seamless access to one of the world's largest integrated markets for services.

It could be assumed that labour mobility would also become a powerful driver of economic growth. While people already move freely across the Border, employers, education providers and workers continue to navigate different regulatory systems, qualifications, tax arrangements and employment frameworks. We have a porous Border where people move, quite rightly, across the island but they do not do it with absolute ease and there is a number of regulatory, taxation and employment challenges that are faced. It would also support more coherent investment in education, apprenticeships and lifelong skills across the entire island.

The transition to the euro, which I presume would be part of the discussion, would represent another important structural advantage. Operating within a single currency would eliminate exchange rate risk, reduce transaction costs for businesses and consumers, and would simplify cross-Border trade and investment.

Perhaps nowhere would the economic dividend be more visible than in the north east and north west of the island. For too long, counties such as Donegal, Derry and Tyrone have found themselves at the edge of two separate jurisdictions rather than at the centre of one coherent economic region. Equally important would be the ability for State bodies to operate across the entire island. Agencies responsible for enterprise, industrial development, research, innovation and infrastructure would be able to plan and deliver on an all-island basis rather than duplicating effort or working within jurisdictional constraints.

I make these points because I think it is an important debate but it is sometimes reduced to a lazy debate that says, "Please produce one singular figure that answers all of these complex fiscal questions". I can tell Deputies that as the finance Minister of this country, and based on what I have put on the record of the House, that is not possible but it is also not intelligent. This is a much more dynamic situation. There are serious economic and fiscal issues to be considered but any discussion about a unified Ireland, a united Ireland or a new Ireland, or the island of Ireland operating as one, that simply reduces the economic conversation to one headline cost, misses the point. That is really one of the points I wanted to make today.

Having said that, none of this suggests the transition would be without significant cost - of course, it would not - nor would it be without significant complexity. It would require careful planning and sustained development. It would require responsible fiscal management. However, fiscal analysis must capture both sides of the ledger. That is why the fiscal debate should not be framed solely about what we inherit; it should be framed about what we are capable of building North and South and purely today, from an economic point of view, the benefits of that over time.

Overall, research consistently highlights that the ultimate fiscal outcome will depend heavily on the terms of any reunification settlement and the extent to which economic convergence is achieved across the island in the years following reunification. The fiscal position in year one would, of course, not remain static. Over time, costs and revenues would evolve as both economies adapt, grow and become integrated. How these opportunities are managed, and the extent to which these benefits are realised, will be the key determinant of the long-term fiscal impact. In other words, these outcomes are not predetermined. They will be shaped by the policy choices we make, the policies we pursue and the decisions we make.

On the one hand, these future fiscal trends come with considerable uncertainty. On the other, they point to one fact: that the fiscal deficit in year one would be significant, regardless of how we wish to cost it. We cannot expect reunification to come at no fiscal cost. It is vital, therefore, to bear in mind the current fiscal situation. In 2025, total net tax receipts in our jurisdiction amount to €106.5 billion. However, we can all recognise that exceptionally strong corporation tax receipts masks the underlying position of the public finances. When these transitory revenues are excluded, the underlying general Government balance in 2025 was a deficit of €7.1 billion. In that context, the scale of any reunification-related cost, at least at the start, would be significant. An annual cost of €3 billion would amount to less than 3% of total tax revenue while an annual cost of €20 billion would be equivalent to almost one fifth of all tax revenue receipts. I make that point to show the range of assumptions that are out there. Either figure would clearly have a material impact on the public finances affecting not only the headline budget position but also the underlying fiscal balance. This illustrates why the range of estimates matters. They are not simply academic differences. Each figure would have a significant implication in terms of spending tax and resilience. Any assessment of reunification must, therefore, be firmly rooted in the context of our fiscal position and indeed the level of taxation borne by citizens and businesses.

It is very much a mixed picture. It is much more dynamic than suggested by people who want to reduce conversations to, "Tell me the figure right now". There will certainly be a significant cost, a broad range in terms of what that cost could be, and a significant difference in terms of the impact of that cost, depending on where it ends in the range. That is year one and perhaps the years ahead. It is not a static number and the decisions that a new Ireland would make would very much depend on the fiscal journey our country is on. That is my best assessment of the points I am trying to make here.

Over the longer term, my Department's Future Forty research also examines how both domestic developments and global megatrends could shape the Irish economy and public finances over the next four decades. This also serves as a useful context for the debate.

Future Forty's message is clear: Ireland's future will be shaped by powerful forces such as demographic change, digitalisation, the climate transition and an increasingly uncertain global economic environment. As policymakers, the task will be to anticipate these challenges, invest wisely and ensure that our economy and our public finances are sufficiently resilient to meet the challenges of the decades ahead. Vitally, we must acknowledge that these pressures will exist regardless of our future constitutional arrangements. These are pressures that we know we will face. An ageing population, increasing healthcare needs, the transition to net zero and the need for continued investment in housing, energy and infrastructure will place a significant demand on public resources. Future Forty serves as an important reminder that our fiscal capacity is not unlimited and that, as a result choices will inevitably arise as to how best to deploy finite resources.

It is important that we begin examining these issues now. Preparing for the future means understanding the economic, fiscal and societal implications of all possible futures, including the prospect of a united Ireland. Any future constitutional change must be underpinned, from an economic point of view, by rigorous analysis, responsible financial and policy planning and a clear understanding of how that will impact the lives of people across this island. Questions of public services, healthcare outcomes, pensions, taxation, infrastructure, housing, education and economic competitiveness are not simply secondary considerations. I am not suggesting anyone believes they are. They have to be at the centre of any informed discussion about Ireland's future.

The research undertaken to date has clearly demonstrated that the range of potential fiscal outcomes is wide and uncertain. This uncertainty must encourage more debate on the topic. That is why we are having this debate today. We should not run from this conversation. In fact, we should run towards and embrace it. This is an important conversation. It is only through evidence-based research, open discussion and rigorous scrutiny, including putting all the information at the table even that we might find challenging that we can ultimately reduce uncertainty and crucially deliver what people will need in this debate, namely, transparency and clarity.

Today's debate is not meant to advocate for one particular outcome, although we probably share a view of what we would like that outcome to be over time. For the first time in Dáil Éireann that I remember in a long time if ever - I certainly do not recall it - we aim to try and put as many facts and as much data and information on the record of this House to ensure that citizens and policymakers alike are equipped with the information needed to make informed choices. It is also to try and push back, as I have tried to do in this contribution, against the headline figure. It is a much more dynamic environment than that. Getting the right answers is built on the meticulous work of asking the right questions. During the course of the debate today, let us put on the record the questions that people believe need to be answered. The economic and fiscal consequences of constitutional change are too important to be left to assumptions. They require evidence and scrutiny.

As we have seen in academic research, in many ways, the conversation about Ireland's future is under way. Our responsibility now is to ensure that the debate is respectful, inclusive and, crucially, grounded in evidence. It is in that spirit that we have tabled this time today on a cross-party basis. I look forward to a productive discussion this afternoon and to this, perhaps, being a jumping-off point for more debate and scrutiny in the time ahead.

I warmly welcome this initiative on the part of the Tánaiste. This is certainly not the first time that Irish unity has been raised on the floor of House, but, generally speaking, it is those of us of this political stripe and on this side of the House who have been pressing for it, so I sincerely thank the Tánaiste for his commentary, which I find constructive. Actually, I find it very refreshing that, as Tánaiste and leader of Fine Gael, he advocates that we embrace this conversation. That is exactly where we need to be. I commend the Tánaiste on that.

This is a significant moment for all of us because the 30th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement is approaching. Let us review how far we have come. Our peace is secure and the next chapter of our national journey is without doubt the peaceful democratic achievement of Irish reunification. We all have a stake in that. Ten years on from Brexit, our constitutional and economic landscapes have fundamentally changed. The North has been taken out of the EU against the wishes of its people, yet we still maintain an open Border and free movement across the island. Cross-Border trade has grown from €4.5 billion to more than €17 billion, which is significant.

Irish unity represents the greatest economic opportunity in the history of this island. That opportunity cannot be missed; it must be grasped. For too long we have been constrained by partition, with two jurisdictions, two tax systems, two sets of regulation, duplication of public services, fragmented and incomplete infrastructure and artificial barriers to trade, investment, higher education and skills. The Tánaiste referred to that. No economy, of its own volition, would choose to organise itself in this way. We have the opportunity to build one robust economy that will work in the interests of our people.

When one enlarges a market, one creates opportunity. Businesses gain more customers, invest with confidence, create jobs and drive productivity and prosperity grows. Partition creates barriers; unity can remove them. For people in the Border counties, the economic cost of partition was never an abstract concept, but the rest of us can miss that there was actually a price tag for all of us, not just for people in the Six Counties or those who live along the Border. Businesses faced unnecessary barriers and investment and infrastructure became fragmented. Both often stopped at the Border. We can change all of that. We can create opportunity and allow business to flourish.

I agree with the Tánaiste that, far too often, economic debate and fiscal consideration have hinged on the subvention from the British Government. In other words, on a singular figure and a debate around what that figure is. Very often, £14 billion is quoted as the figure. Of course, that does not take account of issues around pensions, British national debt, defence spending, diplomatic services, etc. All of these are extant matters which, in my strong view, need to be discounted from that figure, notwithstanding the fact that as and when unity comes about, there will naturally be a discussion and a negotiation with the British state around the terms of disengagement and transition. We should take listen carefully to Professor Seamus McGuinness of the ESRI, who says that the subvention is no longer of a scale that can be considered a major barrier to reunification. Professor John Doyle argues that if the Northern economy performed at the level of the economies of Cork or Kerry, there could likely be no underlying fiscal deficit at all.

The question is not whether we can afford Irish unity; it is whether we can afford partition any longer. I completely agree with the Tánaiste that preparation is key. He spoke about rigorous analysis, planning and an open and inclusive discussion. To that I say, yes, yes, and yes again. I agree entirely with him on that but the real question is this. The preparation needs to be led not alone by a singular figure in Government - by the Tánaiste or his political party Fine Gael. It needs to be led collectively by all of them. The Tánaiste's initiative makes the position of his coalition partners in Fianna Fáil all the more striking, all the more extraordinary and, frankly, all the more inexplicable. I thank the Tánaiste for this opportunity and discussion. Like him, I hope this will be the beginning of a really deep engagement that will involve sharing data, perspectives, politics, ideas and debate.

I really welcome the decision by the Tánaiste and the Government to have these statements on the fiscal implications of a united Ireland. It is crucial that we continue with debates of this type. These are really important and interesting debates and they are about future planning and seeing that we are prepared in the event of a united Ireland. As the Tánaiste and my party leader outlined, the debate around the economics of united Ireland often does hinge on particular figures, namely the big figures that are being thrown around. It involves talk about the so-called cost of Irish unity. Within this debate, it is often assumed that the North is just going to be subsumed into the South without looking at what that would mean economically. It almost seems like the economic status quo will simply continue. That needs to change in the context of this debate because we are talking about a new and united Ireland that will include a new and different perspective on the opportunities that we see for us all from an economic perspective when it comes to a united Ireland

When we are planning for this, we need to look at that in terms of the economic perspective. That needs to be based on it being fair, equal and prosperous for everyone - one where we have strong public services and, most importantly, one that actually works in the interests of all the people who live in Ireland.

Partition has left people in the North without control of their economy. They have been made spectators as major economic decisions are made in Westminster. Working people, whether unionist, nationalist or other, have been failed by partition because at the end of the day, a Westminster Parliament is making decisions on behalf of their communities. Irish unity has really got the potential to deliver for all of our communities, including those communities. It allows us to improve our quality of life and, crucially, gives us as a people ownership and a real stake in our economy.

Irish unity and economic change can go hand in hand. The success of Irish unity demands that. It demands a better Ireland for everybody and that the interests of working people are put first and are front footed. It demands that our resources are harnessed to deliver public infrastructure projects and that every single person has equal opportunity in a new and a united Ireland and that their basic needs are met.

Without proper planning and preparation for Irish unity, we completely and utterly risk missing this seismic opportunity we have to create a new economy and seize this historic opportunity. It is absolutely essential that we begin preparations now.

We need to plan for an all-Ireland universal health service, an all-Ireland transport network - imagine easily accessing Donegal from Dublin on a train? - and an all-Ireland education system. We need to prepare for an informed and inclusive process of transition. To effectively make these preparations for a new economy of a united Ireland, it is necessary that we all work together. I welcome this and I think we should continue it. The Government can and must lead that change.

I thank Deputy Farrell for allowing me some of her time.

I think Michael Collins would be pleased with the Tánaiste today. I thank him for allowing us Government time to discuss such an important issue. I also acknowledge the work Deputy Currie has consistently done in this space.

Hear, hear.

I would need much longer than three minutes to discuss the fiscal implications of a united Ireland, such is the depth and breadth of the work already done. I commend all of those who have done it.

Leaving all politics aside, the economic benefits of reunification present unprecedented opportunities for sustainable growth. As we prepare for the constitutional future of this island, one of the key priorities must be creating an all-island competitive and conducive environment for foreign direct investment and indigenous businesses. The future prosperity of Ireland is dependent on Government policies which address and invest in the key drivers of FDI; human capital, infrastructure, political stability, tax certainty, digitisation and decarbonisation. The very open nature of the Irish economy and over-reliance on FDI and a small number of large US firms exposes an economic vulnerability that covers an underlying deficit of €13 billion. With an all-island approach, we can tackle that properly.

This vulnerability should be tackled by taking an all-island approach to investing in different levels of education and mitigating the socioeconomic barriers to education. A culture of lifelong learning must be encouraged by removing financial barriers and investing in childcare and public services across the island. Fulfilling investment commitments, as outlined in the national development plan and ensuring timely delivery of infrastructure such as all-island transport, telecommunications, utilities, housing and energy, are fundamental to the whole island’s prosperity in the future. An all-island development agency is critical to this prosperity. Competing for investment from multinational companies, based on five interlinked pillars of growth, transformational regions, sustainability and impact as promoted by the IDA is necessary to compete on a global stage. One of the key benefits of reunification would be the access to human capital across the island, with both jurisdictions combined. We spoke about this with IBEC this morning. I commend IBEC and the ESRI on the work they have done on the macroeconomic model. That is hugely important and can solve that issue. I ask the Tánaiste to focus in the interim on what needs to be done.

I ask the Government, through the shared-island unit, to provide funding for student places for students from the jurisdiction here. I refer to the legislation. We need to encourage student mobility across the island. I ask the shared island unit to intervene to provide funding for students from here going to Queen's University and Ulster University.

Regarding the data, the NI Executive should work with the ONS, HMRC and the NISRA to improve the data on tax receipts in the North. This would help to provide more reliable estimates and forecasting. It is about us having the data to be able to do the accurate forecasting we need to do.

The opportunity to progress towards a united Ireland is incredibly exciting. It is an opportunity to reimagine our island and its potential. David McWilliams wrote in recent years about the impact of partition on the North of Ireland. Some 100 years ago, Belfast was larger than Dublin. Some 80% of the island's industrial output was in the area around Belfast. It was an industrial powerhouse. If we compare that to Dublin today, Dublin is way beyond that in population and economic productivity. The economic impact of partition has been devastating, particularly on the North of Ireland.

I can speak with some positivity about the north west. In recent times, we have had positive partnerships in the region standing up and showing the potential if we can break down the impact of the Border and work together.

In recent days, First Minister Michelle O'Neill visited Letterkenny Chamber of Commerce. Present were the heads of Donegal County Council, Atlantic Technological University, Donegal ETB and a range of employers and businesses from across the county. It has been working together with Derry Chamber of Commerce to market one region: the north west city region. They have worked together as councils - Donegal, Derry and Strabane - and as universities - the University of Ulster and Northwest College. We can see, for example, in the City of Derry Airport, 40% of the passengers who use that airport come from County Donegal. We are one region and one people and we have to break it down to achieve our economic potential.

There are many challenges in the Green Paper and the citizens’ assembly, which will inevitably come. There are many challenges and issues but the easiest one is going to be the economic benefits of a united Ireland. They will be immense, particularly for the northern half of the island. As an eminent economist said, if the North of Ireland can perform at the level of counties Cork and Kerry alone, there will be no issues. It will do a lot better than that. The model of the north west is the model and vision of a way forward for a united Ireland. It is an exciting debate; let us have it and let us get on with it.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on statements on the fiscal implications of Irish unity. We hear people tell us Irish unity is a cost we cannot afford but the truth of the matter is partition is the cost we have already paid for for a century and more, and it is a price that is too high. Others have mentioned subvention and how it reduces when we strip away pensions and Westminster debt to an initial annual deficit of approximately €1.75 billion. I say “initial”. In the context of a budget of over €125 billion for 2027, this is manageable. That deficit will disappear when the benefits of unity are realised.

If we are to consider the fiscal implications of Irish unity - of course, we should - then we must consider the cost of partition because the real economic failure is partition itself. It has created duplication, inefficiency and a barrier to our natural prosperity. It has left the North underfunded by Westminster’s austerity and battered by the chaos of Brexit while the South has suffered from a fractured market and a divided island. We are both less than we could be.

Irish unity is not a burden; it is an investment.

It is an investment in ending the historic necessity for emigration, which has forced so many to leave our shores. It is also an investment in creating a single, dynamic all-island economy and in building the critical infrastructure our people deserve. The cost of not uniting - stagnation, two health systems, two tax regimes, a Border region and a wider economy that is held back - is far greater. We have the fiscal capacity and the moral imperative to make this work. We need the political will.

The British Government will still pay pensions, just as it does for retired citizens in Spain, France or Ireland. This debate, following on from last week's debate, and welcome plans in the months ahead from those in politics and elsewhere should be the catalyst for ambitious planning. Irish unity is not a cost to be feared; it is an opportunity to be seized. Let us build a new Ireland - economically vibrant, socially just and united in every way.

I welcome this debate on the financial implications of a united Ireland. I acknowledge that the Tánaiste and so many other Members in this House see its merits in the future. I would have hoped that in this House we would at least have moved past the time of framing this without casting a value judgment. Any discussion on the financial implications of a united Ireland today that is based upon credible analysis would show that Irish unity is a clear economic opportunity for the entire island, and one that we should seize with both hands. Today such arguments serve only as a tool tor those who would frustrate efforts to realise what is our national ambition. Far more relevant is the economic underperformance of the North, as outlined by Professor John Doyle. As a person from a Border county, the North should never have been treated any differently from Cork, Kerry or Dublin. Irish unity is an opportunity to move beyond very real consequences that were inflicted upon the North, by a dysfunctional British State, and one that is totally disinterested in the needs of our people.

This is an opportunity for the people in their ordinary lives and business, to move beyond artificial divergences, which at different times may have negative impacts on either side of the Border. This is an opportunity to seek not just co-operation, but holistic, integrated planning in terms of healthcare, transport, education, tourism and so much more. It is important that we are having this discussion but that we will have many more discussions that must be had if we want to achieve a united Ireland in a planned and structured way.

I recall to all Deputies, these words of Charles Stewart Parnell, spoken 141 years ago, and inscribed on a monument at the top of O’Connell Street, less than 1 mile from here: "No man has a right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation; no man has a right to say to his country, 'Thus far shalt thou go and no further.'"

I would invite them, as demand for Irish unity grows, as its moment presents in front of us, to eagerly take a leading part in these conversations, and not to be a source of frustration. At the very least, they should never be contrarian to those sacred words.

I will finish today with a reference to the Tánaiste's words about what a united Ireland could create. We in Sinn Féin believe that we need a plan and to benefit from the economic benefits to be had.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an díospóireacht seo inniu.

Many myths exist about a united Ireland. I believe the biggest one is the alleged cost it will be to the Twenty-six Counties. Increasing amounts of research show that Irish unity would strengthen an all-island economy, creating more jobs, attracting investment and increasing tax revenue in addition to goodwill.

Let us imagine every county on this island working towards the same economic future. At present, the economy of six counties of our country is controlled by the British Government. The people making decisions about investment and opportunity answer to voters in London, Manchester and Brighton, not Belfast, Derry or Newry. Why would Tory, Labour or Reform MPs prioritise communities to which they have no electoral responsibility? A united Ireland will change that and unlock an all-island economy that would work for everyone who lives on this island. Every Irish county would finally have a government whose only priority is Ireland.

We only need look to German reunification as an example of how planned economic integration and investment within the EU can substantially improve economic conditions in the smaller jurisdiction involved in unification. While the economic output and living standards of the former East Germany have not caught up with the former West German development, by any standards they have improved dramatically.

The role of the EU would be even more central in the case of Irish reunification. It should be to the fore of the Irish Presidency in this term. We must remember that the Good Friday Agreement is an EU-endorsed treaty. It has already been made clear that a reunited Ireland would see the North automatically return to EU membership, creating enormous opportunities for growth across the entire island. This simple but important guarantee means, in economic terms, the potential difficulty faced by Scotland when planning its independence, which had to negotiate membership of the EU in the context of independence, does not apply to the Six Counties.

The subvention is also incessantly cited as a reason we in the South would not be able to "afford" the North. However, a recent study showed that the deficit transferred to the Six Counties is closer to £1.5 billion per year. Pensions have also been mentioned. I always wonder why this was even cited as an issue because it is exactly what already happens to pension recipients in Spain, France, Ireland and wherever a retired British worker resides.

The truth is that even if the economic case was more challenging than it is, Irish unity would still be the right thing to do. It is said: tír gan teanga, is tír gan anam, but a country without a soul is only a vacuous place, and while partition was indeed a failure of our national soul, a failure of our spirit, and a failure to believe that all the people of this island deserve to share one future together, we can change that. A united Ireland is about more than balance sheets. It is about ending the injustice of partition, and finally allowing our country to become whole again. In doing the right thing, we also create a stronger economy and a better future for generations to come. Then it is not simply good economics, it is the fulfilment of our national potential.

When I came across to the Chamber today I walked through the hall and I looked at the Proclamation again. I was reminded of the aspiration of our heroes in 1916 to the unashamed "happiness and prosperity of the whole nation". We have that within our grasp now and we have to move forward.

I welcome this important discussion on the topic of Irish unity and its fiscal implications. It deserves analysis and fundamentally respect for the people, who will ultimately decide the future of this island. There are real challenges in any transition to unity but there are also very significant opportunities. The future of this island should not be reduced to a balance sheet. Fiscal implications are important and must be planned for. However, any future Border poll should focus primarily on the people of this island and the opportunity to build a shared home that works for everybody.

It is essential that we begin to plan and prepare now for transition. A great deal of excellent work has already been done. I want to mention some of the academic research that has been done. The ESRI has already been mentioned. In particular, I want to mention the work done by Fintan O'Toole and Sam McBride in their book, For and Against A United Ireland. It is a very accessible format which sets out some of the complexities and the opportunities of unification.

There is also very valuable work being done by the Analysing and Researching Ireland North and South, ARINS, project, led by the Royal Irish Academy and the University of Notre Dame. I also acknowledge the work done by Professor John Doyle and his colleagues in DCU and Ulster University who have provided detailed economic modelling that has made the fiscal implications tangible.

For years, we have heard that Northern Ireland receives a subvention of between £10 billion and £14 billion. Any suggestion that this bill would just be transferred to a united Ireland is reductive and fails to account for the economic opportunities of unification. Professor John Doyle's research provides a much clearer picture of the potential initial costs. It shows that when we strip out the UK-specific costs, such as national debt interest, defence spending, including on nuclear weapons, and the cost of a global diplomatic service and when we properly count Northern Ireland's tax take, the real figure that would transfer to a united Ireland is about £1.5 billion or roughly €1.75 billion. That is a very different starting point. Professor Doyle and his colleagues' model then adds the costs of levelling up public services. It includes €1 billion per year in extra spending for at least a decade to improve health, education, welfare and infrastructure. It includes a gradual equalisation of public sector wages, starting at €152 million per year. It includes a phased transfer of pension liabilities, rising by about €115 million per year over 40 years. When we put all of that together, the year 1 cost of unity is about €3 billion. It is certainly not an insignificant figure, but it is less than the 1% combined modified GNI of a united Ireland. More importantly, the same modelling shows that a united Ireland could break even within a number years. By year ten, depending on growth, the model suggests that unification will generate between €2.9 billion and €6.7 billion in annual surplus.

Unification presents distinct challenges that need to be carefully planned for and managed. The analysis done by Professor Doyle shows that the cost of pensions would be unlikely to transfer to a united Ireland straight away. Following Brexit, the UK and Ireland signed a bilateral convention on social security in 2019. This confirmed that pension costs would be shared based on the ratio of years worked in each jurisdiction. Ireland should only take over the liabilities accrued after unity. While there should be no cliff edge, this transition must be thoroughly planned to protect pensioners.

The North has also experienced decades of underinvestment. Levelling up will require sustained funding but it will also unlock future potential and prosperity. The UK allocates almost £1.6 billion in defence spending to Northern Ireland. Ireland spends less than that defending a much larger territory and has decades of underinvestment to catch up on. We need increased investment, particularly in systems and technologies, including sonar and air surveillance radar. Unification may also bring additional security challenges that will need to be planned for and funded appropriately. Even with these increases, we will not replicate the British model of defence spending.

These challenges should not blind us from the opportunities. Northern Ireland has underperformed economically for a century. It is the poorest region in the UK. Unification and the reintegration into the European Union present the people of the North with incredible economic opportunities. Tá sé fíor go bhfuil deis iontach againn. Tá dúshláin agus tá rioscaí ann, ach tá go leor le gnóthú. Níor cheart deifir a chur ar an aontú. Níor cheart moill a chur air ach an oiread. Sin é an fáth gur gá dúinn an comhrá a thosú anois. Sin é an fáth gur gá dúinn áireamh a dhéanamh ar dhaoine agus éisteacht le tuairimí difriúla.

Unification should never come down to simply a question of who pays. We should be asking what kind of future we want to build. We can build a future where prosperity is shared and communities and different traditions are respected. We need to begin planning for that future now.

As this is my last speaking opportunity, I thank the Ceann Comhairle and everybody who sits in that Chair, and also the staff of the Oireachtas who make our jobs so possible and sometimes so pleasant. I thank the Government for facilitating this debate. Like others, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the fiscal implications of a united Ireland. This topic is probably the one that makes me feel most privileged to be a politician and a national representative at this moment in Ireland's history. The historic nature of these discussions should not be lost on any of us because it is such an opportunity. Over the next couple of decades as we discuss these things and see the evolution of the debate and the reality outside of the debate, we will have opportunities presented to us.

As many have said already this afternoon, one the ways that we best need to approach any discussions of the fiscal implications of a united Ireland is to reframe it away from cost and to opportunity, or at least balance better the discussions that we have around what a cost it might be to this jurisdiction to become one Ireland. We also need to look at the opportunities because they are many. It is not just the immediate economic opportunities that seem to be quite apparent in terms of two parts becoming greater than the sum of their parts in various of our economic sectors - I will get to a specific example of that in a moment - but it is the opportunity that is presented to us while we approach constitutional change on a broader basis. There are ways that we can see how our governance of this jurisdiction can be improved simply by the opportunities that will be presented by opening up constitutional change and the discussions that we are all going to have about how we govern ourselves right now and how we may govern an entire island of Ireland. That is a hugely important opportunity for us as a political force here in the Republic. We see it as an opportunity to promote social democracy as a governing methodology for a united Ireland. That is something that we will always be putting forward within this debate. It is also an opportunity for us to look at how we can improve the lives of everybody on this island, including all of the new communities that we now have within our population. That opportunity is something that is important.

The other word that is important to bring into any economic discussion and fiscal discussion around a united Ireland is "holistic" because, unfortunately at times, I see the Government looking at the economy as a discrete part of society and neglecting things that fall outside of economic discussion, economic imperatives, and policymaking. If we look at Brexit, for example, while I acknowledge the strong work of the Civil Service in the preparedness that it did for Brexit and appreciate that it was a positive thing, there was far too much focus on trade in Brexit discussions and Brexit preparedness. Unfortunately, there was not enough on rights and equality. That is something within my previous role that we did a lot work on by looking at how the rights and equality implications of Brexit were going to play out. Unfortunately, those are still not entirely clear. Although the Windsor Framework did look to enshrine that policy of no diminution of rights and the non-divergence of rights on either side of the Border, that has not been clear in how it is going to play out. Unfortunately, that is where we might see issues around stability and peace coming under threat in the coming years. Looking at the economy through the lens of rights and equality is a helpful way to start talking about the fiscal implications of a united Ireland.

These figures that we talk about on a large scale have to be located in the lives of people, in particular those who live on the Border and those 30,000 who cross the Border daily. What is going to be different for their lives in a united Ireland? What is going to be different for the lives of everybody on this island?

I want to raise one specific sector. Within my portfolio, the culture sector is a good example of where we could see a much better offering in the joining together of the two economic activities. For example, we have a very vibrant production sector for film and television. It is an increasingly growing sector in Northern Ireland, with a lot of investment going into it at the moment. A total of £72 million is being invested in Studio Ulster, which is a recently established virtual production facility. Surely there is an economic loss in how there are very few cross-Border offerings. There are very few ways in which both of those sectors work together to attract investment to the country. That is an example of where we can see the immediate economic benefit of working together.

I wish to finish in the words of one of those productions. In the final episode, Erin from "Derry Girls" said:

No matter how scary it is, we have to move on, and we have to grow up because things ... well, they might just change for the better. So we have to be brave. And if our dreams get broken along the way ... we have to make new ones from the pieces.

As this is my final time speaking, I thank the Ceann Comhairle and all of the staff in the Oireachtas, including the ushers in particular who take such good care of us and everybody who makes this place work so well, for all that they have done. I hope that they get a good and well-deserved break.

It is possible, perhaps even hopeful, in my lifetime that we will see a united Ireland and the end of partition on this island. I sincerely hope that we do in a way that benefits all people of all communities, traditions and backgrounds.

We have a long way to go to achieve that vision and to achieve the vision of a republic of equals that we have not achieved here in Ireland. It is worthy that one of the starting points of that discussion will be the fiscal make-up of a united Ireland. In a united Ireland, the Six Counties' economic future should be a prosperous one, and in that it has to be properly supported and transformed. I hope we might be able to extend the economic model of the Republic in such a way that our prosperity is shared, with good jobs in multinationals and SMEs, a strong and balanced regional industrial strategy for the 21st century and entrepreneurial supports that underpin a strong indigenous economy. Ireland will have to lead the way in this, as it has not happened under either a Westminster Government or many Northern Ireland Executives. Financial arrangements will have to be agreed, as will trans-Border tax arrangements. Supply chains will have to be reimagined. In that vision, we will have to give people in the Twenty-six Counties and in the six the confidence that a united Ireland will work for all against poverty, unemployment and deprivation, and that we will challenge these scourges that are felt regardless of community or background, for poverty has no religion, unemployment no flag and exclusion no anthem.

The social protection system will have to play a key role in this and will have to lead with principle. It seems only proper that this new united social protection system would do the following from a principled way: establish a shared prosperity and proper social protection supports to underpin a properly functioning economy and society; ensure that no individual is worse off in a united Ireland than they were under partition; and ensure that no individual in identical socio-economic circumstances is treated substantively differently. It would stand to reason then that, particularly in respect of social insurance funds and pension schemes for individuals who contributed to such schemes during their working lives, these contributions would, at the vest least, be recognised in a transitional financial arrangement between Ireland and Britain.

There are challenges in these principles, challenges of politics and reconciliation most of all, but there are practical considerations as well. The UK's universal credit system has had very mixed results, at best, and has resulted in many receiving smaller social protection payments than they would receive in the Republic, sometimes by as must as 20% to 30%. Of course, the UK provides a universal healthcare system and we do not, and has other social supports, but it should not be lost on us that the challenge of merging these systems in a way that sustains livelihoods and the social floor through which no one should fall is a significant one. While the project of integrating these systems will be significant, it is imperative that we take the opportunities to create a better life for all, North and South, where people do not just survive but are given the means to thrive and contribute, and where a system of public services supports that.

The work on that must begin now and I welcome any person who shares this vision of an island where every person is valued not just as an economic unit, but with a socially inclusive place for each person.

I welcome this debate. As I indicated during the discussions on Irish unity last week, we should always be open to discussing any possibilities for new constitutional arrangements or co-operation on this island or between these islands. At all stages, it is critical that the discussion be evidence based, fully transparent and honest. It cannot just be a discussion purely about the economy. It has to be about society more generally.

As the Tánaiste indicated at the start, what is important at all times during our discussion on these issues is that we look to uphold the principles of the Good Friday Agreement, arguably the real sign that politics does work. There is always the challenge that, when romantic idealism meets economic realism, there can be quite a shock. A lot of what we have been talking about here are the issues of fiscal transfers and the sums of money involved, but we need to have broader discussions. There are different economic models operating on both sides of the Border. I am particularly glad to be hearing some members of the Opposition praising so strongly the strength of the economy here in the South, which we do not always hear. When we talk about the approach to the economy that will operate in future on this island, particularly in terms of young people who are looking at what the constitutional arrangements will be, the economic model we will offer will be critical.

I said last week that German reunification was quite different because, at that time, there was much more of a desire among everybody in Germany to reunify. According to the evidence, the cost of unifying both sides since 1990 is estimated to have been about €2 trillion, yet we still have a situation where GDP per capita in east Germany is just 66% of that in the west. As I said, I do not want to concentrate too much on the figures, and the critical issues that were there as that economy grew and emerged were around social cohesion, cultural recognition and acceptance of institutional legitimacy. Those debates also have to be part of the discussion around the economy.

There are crucial differences in our economies. For instance, 15% of the entire workforce here in the South is employed in the public sector while the figure in the North is 30%. That is a quite different economic model and it is something we need to look at. I agree with Deputy Farrell when she says that what we have to consider is how this is about workers, young people and the opportunities we will present to them. There are good examples of work that is being done. I cite Tourism Ireland, for example, for its work to market the island of Ireland quite successfully. In terms of practical measures, we could increase its budget to allow it to do more of that. When tourists come, they travel all over the island and do not tend to see the Border. There is a lot of good work being done in the shared island unit. I agree with Deputy Gibney when she talked about some of the cultural co-operation that was needed.

Critical to the development of any economy is human capital and I am very proud about the fact that, in the South, we have one of the highest rates of participation in further and higher education. I commend the Minister of State, Deputy Harkin, on her leadership in expanding the apprenticeship offerings. However, the way in which the Executive in the North operates sees an inhibitory cap on the number of university places, which contributes to a brain drain from the North. We have long seen a tradition, particularly among those from unionist communities, of going to university, particularly in Scotland, and not returning. We have to look at how we invest in human capital well into the future. That is why some of the research initiatives under the shared island unit have been important.

When we talk about economics, it is about the economic vision we need to present in this country. For me and for young people on both sides of the Border, the vision has to be one of investing in education and research, continuing to be a pro-trade island, which is essential for the island, and being at the centre of the European Union. We need to talk about that far more. Brexit robbed people, not just in the North, but particularly young people, of so many opportunities. I have always been very proud of, and the parties on this side of the House have been consistent in our support of, the European Union and the opportunities it has presented for this island but the greatest advocate for how the European Union has been able to change this island was John Hume, who saw the potential of the EU not just to allow the island to grow economically, but also socially. The SDLP and the Alliance Party have been consistent in their support for the EU, but Sinn Féin needs to be much more clear. It needs to move away from that Eurocritical position it had. Sinn Féin was the only party that put up posters after the Brexit referendum. While I appreciate that she is not present, please bear in mind that, as recently as 2021, Mary Lou McDonald was sharing a platform with Nigel Farage about their vision for the European Union. In terms of our economic opportunities, we have to be right at the heart of the European Union.

I noticed that Deputy Bennett quoted Parnell. I was glad, as he would be a constituent of mine if he was alive today. One thing that needs to be remembered about Parnell is that he was pro business and pro trade.

Parnell owned quarries near Arklow, he had sawmills and he was involved in gold prospecting. He saw the economic potential of this island.

The other message we need to send out if we are to grow this economy is that we are pro-trade. Free and fair trade right throughout history is the greatest example of providing people with employment opportunities and lifting people out of poverty. One of the best examples of this is our being able to trade with Canada. We know the success of this relationship here in the South but Canada is Northern Ireland's fourth largest global export market after Ireland, the US and Germany in engineering, manufacturing, financial services and insurance. A message going out that is saying we are not going to support trade deals with Canada is not in the best interest of the young people of Northern Ireland.

I welcome this debate but it has to be grounded in realism. The difference is that we have to set out that the vision we have will be at the centre of the European Union and that it will be one of a trading nation working together.

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.

I welcome the debate today. Ireland has a proud history and tradition of myths and legends, from Cú Chulainn to Tír na nÓg to the Children of Lír, which have passed down through the generations. However, the latest myth and legend some people are telling is far more damaging. There are people who claim that we cannot afford Irish unity. They are using false data and made-up numbers to try to stop the unity of our Thirty-two Counties, saying it will cost billions upon billions. John FitzGerald wrote a paper on how Irish unity could cost €20 billion. I am not an economist but when I want to understand something, I go to experts like Professor John Doyle, who said the figures in that report were not just the worst case scenario but were also completely wrong. Professor Seamus McGuinness of the ESRI clearly stated that FitzGerald's hypotheses were based on a scenario that could never happen.

Do you know what that reminds me of? For years, when we talked about climate change, climate change deniers were rolled out to give their opinions, even though all the science was against them. Now, we have that happening here, where we know the data and the positive implications Irish unity could have but we are allowing false data to come in to skew the conversation. While I welcome the Tánaiste's comments earlier, he referenced that €20 billion at least twice in his contribution. We cannot allow false data and false information. The debate has to be honest and open but it also has to be fact- and data-based.

The truth is the Six Counties have been economically trapped and cannot reach their full potential under Britain. If these economies were to grow like Cork and Galway, they would be a net positive financial impact on Irish unity.

I hope the next generation of Irish children are raised on mythology of the salmon of knowledge and Fionn Mac Cumhail's trickery. I also hope they are not fed lies and misinformation. We cannot afford this to happen to our Ireland. We must submit that the British rule in the Six Counties has been negative on the people on the whole island of Ireland.

My brothers and sisters in the North who are listening today and are probably gutted after the vote in this Chamber last week are looking for their dreams and the vision of a united Ireland. I stand here in the shadow of Cork men and women who fought and died for Irish freedom. I think today of Mary MacSwiney, who went from her brother's deathbed to this Dáil. She was the true embodiment of a rebel. When we talk about the cost of Irish unity, Mary MacSwiney also spoke about the cost of Irish freedom in the Dáil. She said:

...when talking with my dying brother I asked him, was it worth the cost, and we decided it was, and one of the last things he ever said to me was, "Thank God there will be no more compromise now".

That was Terence MacSwiney, Lord Mayor of Cork, who died on hunger strike in Brixton Prison and was an Irish republican who believed in unity and uniting the whole island of Ireland.

The cost of Irish unity is unclear but we cannot use cost as a reason to abandon our brothers and sisters in the Six Counties. The difference that Irish unity could make is much more tangible for them now. Ireland unfree shall never be at peace. I want to send a message to all of those young people. The cost of unity is the cost of their future. It is the cost of the life they could build here. It is the cost of a border that divides this land, but our peoples will never be divided. Across hundreds of kilometres, across thousands of villages and towns, across mountains and motorways from Cork to Coleraine, we stand united. Onwards to the republic. Cost should never be put in front of Irish unity. We must debate it and be honest but, at the end of the day, it is important that all of us deliver the Irish unity that was in the Proclamation and that the people of Ireland want and deserve.

I note Deputy Gould's emotive and emotional remarks and his tour of recent Irish history, but the focus of this debate and this society need to be on the present and on preparing for the future. I mean it most sincerely that there is an onus on us and a responsibility on all of us who believe that uniting Ireland is the best way in which we can serve the material interests of our people to ditch the sloganeering, be less reliant on the four green fieldisms and to have less of a focus on what I might describe as the Kneecapification of Irish history and to focus on a future in which we can all believe. We should also focus on the ways in which we can persuade those who do not agree with us to join us on that journey, because accommodations will need to be reached. Processes will need to be put in place by those of us who are serious about uniting this country, outside of the romantic vision of what our forefathers fought for and all of the rest of it. That work has to happen now. We have to prepare for it and we have to do it. Not only will it have to be led by Government, it will have to be supported by the Opposition as well, because if we cannot agree in this House on the way forward in a consensual fashion, how are we going to persuade those who disagree with us and have a right to disagree with us? That right to disagree with us is enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement, which was agreed with the consent of all of the people, North and South, so we know the structure that is in place.

In recent years, I have detected a timidity at government level about how we advance the objectives that I want to see emerge and which are facilitated and catered for in the Good Friday Agreement on how we approach that challenge, ambition and aspiration that I validly have and on which, of course, many on this island disagree with us. Accommodations will have to be reached with those who disagree with us, and we need to be honest and upfront about that. We also need to be prepared to say what those accommodations look like and how we can make them if it really is our objective to arrive at what I, Deputy Currie and others describe as a new Ireland, a different Ireland. It is not going to be the same and there will be accommodations that may be uncomfortable for some of us, but they will have to be arrived at. There will be fiscal and financial implications for this State in that transition. There is an obligation on us, insofar as we can, to properly interrogate and consider those implications and to be upfront about them.

While I do not want to reach too far back in Irish history, it is important that we have a considered look at the experience of Ireland in the past 30 years. The story has been one of significant economic and social divergence. It is an unpopular thing to say, and it is a contested space, but I hear lots of people, especially from Fianna Fáil, talking about how the transformation of the economy in the Republic of Ireland was down to the Good Friday Agreement in some way. That is a contested space. The transformation of the Irish economy was under way from the early 1990s. Did the Good Friday Agreement do it any harm? No, it did not, but let us not exaggerate its impact on the Irish economy. It is good and it had an impact, but was there a causal relationship? I am not so sure. The jury is out on that. However, is the Good Friday Agreement a good thing and good for our economy? Of course, it is. Did the guns fall silent in the North? Yes, they did, and that is a good thing and it allowed the economy in the North to develop, albeit at a different rate to our own. There are features of the economy in the North that need to be addressed and need our support and the support of the UK to be addressed.

With the notable exception of the crash years and the great recession, the story of the economy in the Republic of Ireland has been one of consistent growth, economic development and more or less full employment for a considerable period. However, it is a rich country that has a problem understanding that it is now sustainably rich. Those of us in opposition will, of course, say that this country needs to do better, and it can. Those problems are not problems of money and resources any more; they are problems to do with ideology, philosophy and different interpretations on how our economy should be run and how public services should be invested in. They are not challenges that cannot be overcome. They can be overcome, and, of course, I will say that they can be overcome if different political decisions are taken, but politics is capable of fixing this country.

I am often kind of alarmed, and I say this with the greatest of respect to my friends and colleagues in Sinn Féin, that there is a degree of partitionism in the way in which that party approaches this question. On the one hand, it is legitimate for an Opposition party to critique the economic model day in, day out. I do it myself all of the time, and we all know that Ireland can do better. However, at the same time, is that kind of critique helping to persuade those whom we need to persuade into a new Ireland? I am not so sure that it is. The arguments are different on both sides of the Border, and I make that point with the greatest of respect. That is perhaps a challenge for a party that is organised on both sides of the Border, and I understand that.

As we know, the North has deep, systemic problems. It is still a deeply divided region and polity and, while we have peace, we do not have reconciliation. There are those who are far too invested in fighting the war by other means, politically, and that is continuing to divide that society. Call me old-fashioned, but I cling to the idea that every parent wants what is best for their children. Every grandparent wants what is best for their grandchildren. That includes continuing the development of the economy, providing good jobs and educational opportunities and so on.

The more we develop this State and resolve its problems, and the problems are manifold, the better chance we have of persuading those who do not agree with us at the moment to join us on this journey and persuading them of the merits of it. As I say, most people want what is best for their children, regardless of what their political affiliations might be, and those affiliations, by the way, need to be accommodated in the new Ireland. We are not good at describing what those accommodations will be or what that relationship with the UK will be, whether economically, socially, politically, culturally or otherwise. It is a relationship that will have to be maintained. It will look very different as we approach a new Ireland.

When looking at our preparedness, or lack thereof, Brexit is the single biggest warning from our recent history. We could very well end up with Nigel Farage having the keys of No. 10 and the prospect of a united Ireland by some kind of default coming down the tracks much quicker than we thought. We are not prepared. Nigel Farage and Reform UK could not give a monkey’s toss about what some would describe as the Celtic fringe of these islands, and that is the reality. They do not understand history. They have not thought about it. They have not thought about the implications of their little Englander mentality. Brexit shows us the vulnerability and the risks of not being prepared, of not considering the impact of referendums, not considering what the question is, not considering transitional arrangements and costs and so on. That needs to be properly thought out but, to date, it has not been.

Of course, as others have said, this is a very contested space. We have had research carried out by the IIEA that says one thing, research carried out by Professor Doyle that says another thing, and the ESRI saying something entirely different. We have solid, important work being carried out on an ongoing basis by, for example, ARINS, and that work is socialised by The Irish Times, which gives it a platform to try to disseminate that really important information to be popularly consumed and interrogated. That is very important. I disagree with the leader of Sinn Féin, Deputy Mary Lou McDonald - I think Michelle O'Neill also said it some years ago - that this is something that is being discussed at kitchen tables across the country. I do not believe it is. However, it should be, and I hope it will be. We need more detail because people will naturally ask what the implications are for them.

Deputy Malcolm Byrne referred to the experience of uniting Germany. That was a very different prospect when the vast majority, if not all, of East German citizens wanted to become part of a united German polity. As we know, that is not the case on this island. We need to be careful about how we approach that.

The economic argument that we can make on this part of the island is a strong one, and should continue to be a strong one. In his opening contribution, the Tánaiste said that we need to look at both sides of the ledger when it comes to the financial and fiscal implications of a united Ireland. He is absolutely right. Those of us who represent constituencies like Louth see this every day, and my colleague, Deputy Ó Murchú, will undoubtedly speak about this as well. The impact of partition on places like Louth has been profound, but the impact of peace has been profound as well. We see this in practical terms, day in, day out, in the relationships developing between businesses on both sides of what is now, thankfully, a permeable and invisible border. These are relationships that were always there, but they were damaged by partition. Chambers of commerce are working together closely in Drogheda, Dundalk and Newry. Local authorities are working closely in Louth, Newry, Mourne and so on. We have seen the development of the Narrow Water Bridge, which will open shortly - I walked by it only two or three weeks ago. That is a manifestation of what is possible. There is the development of the Enterprise network linking Dublin, Drogheda and Dundalk with Newry, Portadown, Belfast and so on. The frequency of those services is making a real impact. We know, for example, that the Dundalk Institute of Technology will transition to university status thanks to its relationship with Queen’s University. In real life, in everyday terms, these relationships are forming anyway because they make sense, and they are continuing to form.

At the invitation of SDLP colleagues, I spoke at a meeting in Warrenpoint recently about the ways in which we can better develop cross-border health services. There are huge opportunities in the context of heart and stroke services, cancer services and so on, but those opportunities are not being developed in the way we or our constituents would like. There are barriers still, for a host of different reasons. There are obvious opportunities in a united Ireland on that side of the ledger. Yes, there will be costs, but there are opportunities in a remodelled economy. For example, a new Ireland would obtain a very different culture in the manufacturing space than we have had traditionally in some parts of this country, given the experience in Belfast and the concentration of some important industries in Belfast, Derry and elsewhere. There are economies of scale that we could develop for significant infrastructure development and, for example, we hope that the A5 would materialise in a way that we would like.

We have a major problem in this country with scaling up indigenous enterprises and ensuring that Irish companies can go global from here. I will share with the House one anecdote. During my spell from 2014 to 2016 as Minister of State with responsibility for enterprise, we tried to host a joint Enterprise Ireland-InterTradeIreland trade mission in the United Arab Emirates for a very significant health med-tech initiative. InterTradeIreland was on board and Enterprise Ireland was on board, but that exercise was being resisted by my counterpart at the time in the northern Executive, Arlene Foster. These are the challenges that we have.

That is why I circle back to this point. I cling to the idea that, surely, because of our economic performance, because of the potential of this part of the island and what we have done at a top line over the last few years, we can persuade people that unionist, loyalist and dissenter can do better in a new Ireland - that jobs will be better, that businesses can do better and that there will be a material difference to the lives of everybody. It is on that basis that we have to proceed. We need to be serious about that, and we need to be serious about the fiscal implications. While we are looking at the finances, we need to look at the costs but also the opportunities.

I welcome the debate and the contributions from all Members of the House, as well as the varying views. As Cathaoirleach of the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, I believe this is exactly the type of debate and discussion that we should be having in this House. The agreement envisages that the people of this island may one day be asked to decide on their constitutional future. It is right that we prepare for that question seriously, honestly and well in advance. The Good Friday Agreement rests on the principle of consent. Any change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland can only happen with the agreement of a majority of its people. That principle is settled. Our task is to make sure that if people are asked to decide, they can decide with full information.

That brings me to the fiscal implications. Members will have noticed that the estimates vary enormously. In 2025, researchers at Dublin City University and Ulster University published the first peer-reviewed study of the cost of unity over its first ten years. They put the cost in year one at approximately €3 billion. They found the deficit would decline gradually and end within approximately five to nine years, depending on growth. The Institute of International and European Affairs reached a very different conclusion in 2024. Professor John FitzGerald and Professor Edgar Morgenroth estimated a basic cost of close to €11 billion a year. If wages, welfare and pensions in the North were raised immediately to southern levels, their figure rose above €20 billion. Clearly, there is a very considerable gap between the two studies. The studies make different assumptions about pensions and the UK national debt, and very different assumptions about how quickly the Northern economy could grow and converge with our own.

That is the honest position. The true scale of the cost is yet unknown.

Anyone who claims certainty on the figure is not being straight with anybody. It would be a mistake for any of us in this House to pick the study that suits our argument and set the rest aside.

Some speakers have suggested that the money is not the first consideration, and I agree. Identity, belonging and reconciliation are matters of the heart as much as the national balance sheet. Voters from all traditions, however, will want to know where they stand before they go to the polls. That is not crude accounting; that is respect for the electorate. We should certainly do what we can now, and I am suggesting three things.

First, we should build an evidence base. Much reference has been made today to the shared island unit in the Department of the Taoiseach, which has published extensive research on two economies, two labour markets, education, health and other areas.

The Department of Finance's 2024 paper Shared Island, Shared Economy sets out the facts plainly. Productivity in Northern Ireland is in line with that in our Border and midlands regions, well behind the economy as a whole. Public sector employment accounts for 33% of jobs in the North, against a much lower figure here. The North has a far higher share of people with no formal qualifications, and there are gaps in opportunities any future arrangement would have to address. There are also gaps that we can start closing now through greater co-operation and engagement.

Second, we should build prosperity in the meantime. The Government has announced €377 million in new shared island investment across 12 cross-Border projects. Some €193 million will upgrade the Dublin–Belfast–Derry rail lines between 2027 and 2030. A further €35 million will continue the hourly Dublin–Belfast Enterprise train service. That service doubled rail connectivity between our two largest cities and grew passenger numbers by 40% in its first year. There is also €33 million for a new water quality programme for Lough Neagh, €30 million to complete the Ulster Canal, and €13.5 million for early learning and childcare, including 1,000 upskilling places for early years educators. That is what practical co-operation looks like. It benefits communities North and South today, irrespective of the constitutional future people choose tomorrow. It is important that we recognise the success of that co-operation today.

The third point is that we must keep asking the right questions. That is very important regarding pensions, debt, transition arrangements and the shape of any agreement with the UK. The assumptions that drive every estimate deserve rigorous independent scrutiny long before any referendum is called. I ask the Taoiseach and, indeed, the Minister for Finance to continue and expand the shared island research programme so the fiscal questions raised in this House today are answered with evidence rather than assertion.

The unity of the Irish people, achieved by consent and through reconciliation, is a founding aspiration of my party. We pursue it by building trust, deepening co-operation and delivering for communities on both sides of the Border.

I welcome this debate this afternoon and am happy to be able to make a small contribution to it. I grew up in a Border town. I ended up in that town because my father was a trade union organiser who represented workers on both sides of the Border for a long number of years and, in fact, went on to be based in the North for a long time. At that time, we knew, and it is very apparent now, that the Border was a barrier to workers becoming organised. Partition has always served, and will always serve, the interests of elites and never ordinary people because it is ordinary people who have always had to pay the price of partition. When we talk about the fiscal implications, we need to see the advantages and discuss the advantages of ending partition.

I am fortunate enough to represent a constituency that is very firmly in the Dublin–Belfast economic corridor. Before partition, as we know, Belfast was a thriving industrial powerhouse. Partition put a lid on the potential of that city to grow and flourish. That potential needs to be unlocked even further for the benefit of our whole island. Likewise, cities like Derry must be allowed to reach their full potential, unhindered by the constraints of partition.

The Border is expensive. London does not care much for the North. When we hear the new Prime Minister talk about devolution, he very rarely, if ever, mentions the North because the North and the people in it have always been little more than an afterthought to the London establishment. When we talk about Irish unity, we should frame that discussion as one about potential for growth, the potential for all-Ireland working and all-Ireland business. Between Belfast and Dublin, there are five universities, numerous colleges of further education and training, and businesses that are ready to scale up.

The Dublin–Belfast economic corridor is 100 miles long and home to one third of the island's population. While there is a lot happening in terms of cross-Border working, there could be a lot more done. The implications of increasing this activity are absolutely positive. Growth, jobs, research and innovation all can and should be achieved within one jurisdiction.

As the debate on Irish unity advances, and it is advancing despite what some of the people opposite would like to happen, we need to frame that discussion in a positive way. We need to look clearly for those opportunities while acknowledging the challenges. We are not blind to the challenges. We know there are challenges but we also know that every single one of them represents a reason to end partition.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for all the flexibility she allows in this Chamber, and hopefully that will continue as we speak.

I welcome an awful lot of what Deputy Devlin said. I have often come in here and welcomed the work of the shared island unit, whether we were talking about the Narrow Water bridge or research on educational attainment and differentiation. That is all worthwhile. Every time I come in and have an interaction here, it is generally with Deputy Devlin's leader, the Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin. He states explicitly that the shared island unit will not go anywhere next nor near questions on research or anything else as regards constitutional change on the island. It was hardly a shock to me and many others that he decided that the simplicity that was asked for by Sinn Féin last week, such that we would consider preparations for Irish unity, was not acceptable. Most people would see this as a possibility, even those who do not necessarily like the idea. Most politicians would say there is sense to planning. That is all we were looking for.

I welcome the debate to consider the fiscal realities and the implications of Irish unity. I was at an IBEC meeting earlier and one of the first things stated, following a question from Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh, related to an issue I have raised here many times, namely the implications for those working remotely cross-Border and the fact that, because of the tax systems that need to be created, it just does not work for employers or employees. We have a number of issues like that, including dealing with the common travel area and the impact on workers who cannot just travel from North to South at this point in time. We need to deal with those sorts of issues. However, we must be clear. Reference was made to the difference between Professor John FitzGerald's research and Professor John Doyle's. Obviously, we come down far more in favour of Professor Doyle's. In fairness, he dealt with the issue of pensions, which the Deputy spoke of. However, the fact is that we need to ensure this State does preparatory work on making these comparisons. Only the State can do it.

I call Deputy Brian Stanley.

It is not about external researchers; it is about getting this State to do it.

When Deputy Ó Murchú flatters me, I should be very worried.

For me, it will always be about delivering the Republic.

Deputy Stanley is on his feet.

Once again, I thank the Ceann Comhairle for her great flexibility and decency.

The debate today is hugely important. It is 29 years since the Good Friday Agreement and this is my 16th year in this House. I have been waiting each year patiently, hoping this debate would happen. I particularly welcome the constructive approach. I listened to every word the Tánaiste said. While I would disagree with him on many things here at different times, I believe he approached the matter very constructively. His statements were very constructive and will contribute greatly. I hope this is the beginning of moving on the process.

The big argument of those who still support partition and have a partitionist mentality is that we cannot afford a united Ireland. As a left republican, I put the case that we cannot afford not to have national reunification. Various claims have been made by economists, some highlighting the economic logic of reunification and others exaggerating the cost, with the latter done mainly by ignoring the fundamental issues and facts.

As an example of that, they ignored the economic damage caused by partition, particularly in Border areas. The previous speaker referred to the IBEC meeting this morning, which I was happy to attend. Its representatives gave us the example that firms in the Border region are now reluctant to hire workers from the other jurisdiction due to the difficulties with Revenue and tax compliance, etc. That is a real issue that IBEC is highlighting. That is just one more issue that is popping up.

Those who still argue for partition ignore the fact that in a reunified 32-county state, the pension liabilities of those workers in the Six Counties who accrued pension entitlements by paying into the British national insurance system and the British exchequer or employment pensions would receive that portion of their pension liability. It would not fall to a new government of Ireland but, rather, to the British exchequer into which they paid.

Currently, taxpayers in the North contribute to the cost of the British royal family. The relevant figure when last I looked was €137 million. I think that was the figure for last year. There is also the cost of Britain's massive diplomatic mission and its embassies across the world, not to mention its occupation of the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and many other places. The cost is €2.6 billion for the diplomatic mission alone. There is also MI6 and the massive military machine and capacity, including the army, the navy and the Royal Air Force. I saw a figure of €60.2 billion for 2025 and 2026. That amount is due to rise sharply to meet its increased military capabilities. Proportionate or not, all of that is paid for by residents of the Six Counties. Taxpayers in the Six Counties have to carry part of the burden of Britain's ever-increasing national debt.

Of course, the fundamental points cannot be ignored. One of the key points is that Britain no longer has the benefits of empire. Its coal industry is gone. Revenue from North Sea oil has all but dried up. Britain's manufacturing base has gone south, including car-making. Those jobs have gone to the Third World and China. Those fundamentals cannot be ignored. Are supporters of partition really saying that we can continue on this small island with 14 different departments in each jurisdiction working back to back, often in competition with each other? Are they saying that having Twenty-six Counties in the EU and Six Counties out of it makes economic sense? Are they saying that having two revenue systems and two separate currencies on this small island of 7.3 million people is logical? The fact is that we need an all-Ireland economy that gives us economies of scale both to improve exports and enlarge the whole market. We need a single currency and a single revenue system that will benefit the Thirty-two Counties. Having the whole country in the European Union, which is not the case as a consequence of Brexit, would be of obvious benefit.

We need the North-South interconnector. We should drop all opposition to it. That needs to be built. Government departments working with singular focus in all areas, right across government, would bring efficiencies to public services.

Along with the strong economic case for reunification, there is also the political and social case, with opinion polls now showing an ever-increasing number of people in favour of reunification. There is an onus on the Government to begin planning and preparation work for reunification. There is no reason to delay this any further.

It has been useful to have this series of debates about the possibility of unification and its implications for all parts of the island in the context of the discussion and debate of the Sinn Féin Green Paper last week and the debate we are having now. These dialogues are important as they allow us to discuss the real opportunities that unification can create. They allow us to also be honest about the challenges that will emerge from unification and to be realistic about the significant political distance that still has to be travelled before this becomes an immediate political question.

As a party that organises on an-all island basis, the Green Party is acutely aware of the economic and social challenges faced by the population of Northern Ireland. These challenges are magnified by the continued failure of the current political institutions in Northern Ireland to operate for the best interests of the people rather than achieving best political advantage for the parties.

We have to be conscious of the major capital investment that will be needed in a united Ireland to improve infrastructure across Northern Ireland. The region has lagged behind in infrastructure and development. We must recognise that a part of that was because a significant portion of the capital investment in Northern Ireland was purely on security infrastructure and not on the long-term infrastructural needs of the population. The approach to capital investment has to be supercharged.

A number of Deputies, particularly on the Government side, mentioned the shared island unit and the shared island fund. They absolutely have been important. Some boutique projects have been partly funded by the State and that is certainly something I welcome. We must recognise that those are just initial forays and are not of the scale that is needed. That scale remains huge.

Just one area where that is highlighted is the all-Ireland rail review, which was published approximately two years ago. That review shows the scale of investment needed in just one area. However, it also demonstrates the benefits that could emerge on an all-island basis if its recommendations were to be implemented.

I welcome the recent public publication of the Renewable Electricity Generation Bill by the economy minister in the Executive. If it is enacted and implemented, it will allow more households in Northern Ireland to enjoy the benefit of cheaper renewable energy and also help the region to move towards achieving its emission reduction targets.

Infrastructural investment is also much needed in the context of housing. Some 32,000 households are currently experiencing homelessness in Northern Ireland. The housing crisis there has been exacerbated by the failures of the Executive to reach social housing targets and by too regular cuts in its housing budget.

Just as there is a major question regarding capital investment, a significant increase in current investment will be needed to deal with the many endemic social challenges that would be faced in the context of a united Ireland. Rates of poverty across Northern Ireland are significantly higher than the rates here, and that has resulting impacts on life expectancy and physical and mental health.

We know that Northern Ireland has not kept pace with the level of investment in education and skills that we have witnessed in the Republic. This has led to a significant divergence in skills and has left Northern Ireland in a position now whereby its productivity is similar to where it was as far back as 1998. A number of Deputies have already mentioned that in view of the high proportion of public service employment across Northern Ireland, the question of liability as to the pensions for former Northern Ireland civil servants is significant. These are men and women who served their working lives within the British civil service system but who, following unification, would be drawing their pensions in a united Ireland. The question of the funding of that will be extremely significant in any talks following a "Yes" vote on both parts of the island.

As the leader of the Green Party, I see our island as a common biosphere. The challenges to our environment and biodiversity and our need to achieve climate reduction targets are shared. I think of the work my colleagues in Green Party Northern Ireland are doing to highlight the devastating pollution of Lough Neagh, our island's largest lake, where algal blooms are causing lasting damage to biodiversity. Something similar is happening at Lady's Island Lake in Wexford. A number of steps are finally being taken, which I welcome. I, my colleague Senator Malcolm Noonan and others have raised that issue. This is just one example of the shared environmental and climate challenges across our island. Initial co-operation and, subsequently, all-island action can have real benefits.

I have touched on a very small number of the fiscal challenges and questions to which the possibility of unification would give rise. It is as valuable to discuss those issues as it is necessary to discuss the constitutional questions, because the question of unity goes beyond votes, parties and institutions. A united Ireland must be about raising living standards and providing equal opportunities for everybody across the island and doing that while protecting and enhancing the natural environment for everyone living on our island.

I welcome the opportunity to debate such a significant issue. It is helpful that this debate is being framed from a line Department perspective in that it has begun by looking at the fiscal implications of a united Ireland. It would be helpful if we also had a debate on the implications for education and health of a united Ireland. When the Tánaiste spoke earlier in his capacity as Minister for Finance and our party leader earlier, he began the debate by contemplating how we can be more constructive in relation to how we are going to deliver a united Ireland. He also did so at our commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Garret FitzGerald, who, of course, was instrumental in the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which was vociferously opposed by, I think, Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and most unionists. With the passage of time, however, any fair and impartial observer would recognise that institutional benefit of ensuring that Ireland and the United Kingdom had a joint role in the affairs of Northern Ireland proved to be instrumental in all the subsequent peace agreements we ultimately arrived at. That kind of legacy and philosophy is important. We need to build on both if we are going to have a constructive debate on a united Ireland. The debate must be built based on real pillars and actual things, including what the practical implications are across education, health and finance.

Of course, the aspiration for a united Ireland goes way beyond those issues. It is the foundation of our State. It is what I think most of us, if not every single person who has been elected to this House, believes in. We are sitting in this Chamber because of the sacrifices so many people made in the pursuit of a united Ireland. That has been the long-term aspiration of this State since its establishment and, I think, of every political party whose members have sat in this Chamber since that date. This is an emotive connection to our island that travels through all of us. It is something that is far greater than the practical implications.

If and when the moment arrives, pursuant to the Good Friday Agreement, that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says it is time to have a referendum on unity, let us have our ducks in a row. Let us have a properly constructed debate. I say, in a non-partisan way, that it would be helpful if other political parties carried out an exercise similar to the one we are carrying out and if they presented different papers. Let us demonstrate to those in Northern Ireland that we do care about the community they believe in and that we believe in their aspirations for a united Ireland. Let us also demonstrate to those who are perhaps sceptical but not opposed to a united Ireland that down here we are thinking about it and about the implications it would have for their lives and livelihoods.

As the Tánaiste outlined, there are always going to be different costs if you assess these things on a static basis but he also highlighted the opportunity of the services we have in our economy, an all-island service economy and recognising the enormous benefits that could bring. He highlighted the euro, which is important. If we think back to the Scottish referendum, one of the biggest reasons it failed was because the Scottish people were not certain whether they were going to have the British pound or the euro. They were not certain of the sovereignty of the new Scotland and what relationship it would have with the British monarchy in future. They were not certain either about defence, which was perhaps an even more important issue for them than would be the case on this island. We can learn from the outcome of a debate that was on a knife-edge; a flip of a coin and Scotland would have been independent. Something else we know from that referendum is just how much it stirs people’s interest in politics from a young age.

I have said I am a constitutional nationalist like every single person in this Chamber but every Irish person from a very young age up has a strong connection to this idea of unity and they want to see all their elected politicians within this State speaking to that aspiration. It is up to us to be able to demonstrate that this aspiration can bear fruit. We can demonstrate to an older generation that there is nothing to be fearful about when it comes to the implications relating to the cost involved, to health or to education. The only way we can do that is by having a constructive debate in this Chamber and by adopting the approach of having a line Department look at these issues. Obviously, none of that will be sufficient unless we can demonstrate to every community in Northern Ireland that the country will be an inclusive place, but we in Ireland have shown just how inclusive we can be. I am 41 years old. Thinking back, there is such a difference between Dublin city now and Dublin city 20 or 30 years ago, particularly when one considers that in that one in four of those who live in Dublin are not originally from Ireland. We have demonstrated that we are a much more inclusive city and a much more inclusive country and that the history that would perhaps have scared many of those in the Protestant and unionist communities in Northern Ireland has been shed by people south of the Border. We do not have the burden of sectarianism and one particular church dominating our views and policies.

We have an awful lot to offer. We hold the Presidency of the European Union. There are an awful lot of young people in Northern Ireland and the Republic who see the opportunities offered by having direct membership of the European Union. It is true that as a result of the negotiations relating to Brexit, we did a lot to protect Northern Ireland’s interests in terms of its relationship with Europe, but those people want to be part of the European Union. They feel Irish and they feel European. Many in the middle ground unionism recognise our affinity with Europe, and that would speak to them in a way that would be persuasive to their ideals. However, nobody can underestimate the challenges the State faces in persuading a population that is very sceptical that we would we welcome them to this country and that we could provide a state that would function. What we can do right now - I think that is what the Tánaiste's contribution and these statements have commenced - is to talk to the people of this State and say to them that there are things that need to be contemplated at line Department level. We need to convince them that we are looking at what they fear and at the risks involved in order that we can be ready to talk to those to whom I refer. At the same time, we have to continue to engage by means of the shared island initiative and to keep building relationships at a community level in order to support everyone on this island.

I welcome the chance to speak about the fiscal impact of the long-overdue reunification of Ireland. I also welcome the Tánaiste's speech. It is a pity that more people in the House did not speak up in the same way.

For too long a false narrative has been published by those who oppose reunification. Whether in politics or the media, they have used their position of power to scare people off the idea but these are the same people who never cared about the people of the North or those in the Border communities that were forcibly divided. As a farmer, I look at the continued partition of this island and see the damage it is doing to our agricultural sector. Look at the spread of TB among herds. It is a disease that does not recognise artificial borders. Rates of TB in the North are far higher than in the South and many outbreaks in the South have been traced back to Northern herds. Farming families are put under immense pressure financially and mentally when they lose a herd to TB. That is heartbreaking. It makes no sense that on such a small, well-connected island we have two completely different systems trying to tackle the same problem. It is true that there is a joint project under way, but it is far too limited in the context of how it operates. We need a single, unified and all-island approach.

Partition also creates barriers for our agrifood sector and prevents the full potential of a unified economic zone.

It leads to higher costs and more bureaucracy for our farmers and producers and adds to the pressures they face. When we talk about a united Ireland, we need to be ambitious. We need to ask why the economy in the North lags behind that of the South and, more importantly, how we can fix that. There is no doubt that reunification will bring challenges, but it will also bring immense opportunities. It is time that we started focusing on those.

I welcome this debate. Such a debate has been needed for quite a long time. The reality is that for many people, the issue of the financial implications of Irish unity has been used as a put-down to try to smother or put a stop to argument and debate. This is a welcome way in which we can open that up. This debate is really about the opportunities that Irish unification would offer as opposed to the difficulties that might arise. There are opportunities, particularly in the agriculture sector, which I deal with most. I speak to farmers in the North all the time. They see the implications of unity. I meet them at the marts in the South when they are moving animals across the Border. All of those things have difficulties and constraints they should not have. Of course, we have the areas of natural constraint payments that most farmers on this side of the Border avail of. Unfortunately, those payments are no longer available in the North. Sinn Féin has recommended that the payments should be restored. Farmers need support. Brexit took their support away. Brexit took people north of the Border out of the European Union against their will. That placed a sharp focus on the prospect of reunification and what it could deliver for people.

Much has been said about the shared island unit, which has done some magnificent work. However, the Taoiseach explicitly stated from the start that this unit was not a vehicle for constitutional change. We need such a vehicle. We need a means by which we can have discussions like this. A debate here for a couple of hours is fine, but I remember being involved in some of the deep talks with people in the early days of the peace process. We sat in rooms and talked about reconciliation. I met Garret FitzGerald on many occasions at the Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation. All sorts of people from across society, North and South, came together, not just for a couple of hours now and again but for days on end, to discuss the issues and go through the problems and difficulties that peace would entail. It was about a process. That is what we need to develop now, namely a process relating to reunification, as opposed to just having a debate on the odd occasion. This is why the Bill we put forward last week is so important. It is so disappointing that it did not attract support. I hope Government will reflect on that and recognise that we need to build a process. There is an energy for reunification among ordinary people the length and breadth of the country.

This is about the physical constraints, but is also about identity. Many people who live on this island have a British identity. If we are to have a free country, they have to be free to express that identity. We can all stand up for that.

I am glad of the opportunity to speak on the issue of Irish unity. Aontú is one of the few parties in this House that is active North and South and that stands candidates in elections in every county. At this time, the poll figures indicate that we are moving in the right direction. Even our opponents on this issue are almost accepting the inevitability of a united Ireland. I feel an enormous privilege and responsibility as an elected member of this House at such a time in this nation’s history when we are on the cusp of Irish unity. It is an extraordinary thing to say that the island will be united in the very near future. As a result, it is fundamentally important that we prepare for and discuss Irish unity.

It is important that those who oppose a united Ireland - who are now a minority on this island, and increasingly so - are treated as equals and with the respect they deserve in the discussions relating to a united Ireland. I have good friends from the Protestant tradition to whom I speak on a near daily basis. Despite our differing politics, it is really important that we remain open to communicating with people. The reason we are friends is because we debate these issues. We do not ignore our differences. Rather, we celebrate and discuss them and challenge each other. One of my favourite quotes from the Good Friday Agreement is, "We acknowledge the substantial differences between our continuing, and equally legitimate, political aspirations."

Some people in this Chamber who are well-intentioned are getting it wrong. Rather than celebrating and respecting our differences and our right to be different politically or religiously, they wish to make us all the same. They want to make us all apolitical atheists who never speak on or campaign in respect of the issues. The move away from faith-based schools in the North towards integrated and secular education is upsetting to people on both sides of the divide. Both sides are ironically united in their fight to remain different. Protestants want to be Protestants and Catholics want to be Catholics. Unionists want to be unionists and republicans want to be republicans. The idea that we should all become the same is completely contrary to the Good Friday Agreement and the vision of John Hume, who said:

Difference is of the essence of humanity. Difference is an accident of birth and it should therefore never be the source of hatred or conflict. The answer to difference is to respect it. Therein lies a most fundamental principle of peace — respect for diversity.

Aontú believes fundamentally in a united Ireland. During the Civil War, the pro-Treaty side said that the Treaty would create the freedom necessary to attain freedom. Those on the anti-Treaty side wanted freedom there and then and were sceptical that if it was not achieved in the 1920s, it never would be. No matter what side our political ancestors were on, the crux of it is that they would want us to strive for a united Ireland today. Liam Mellows once said that if Ireland was partitioned, two establishments would arise on each side of the Border and that they would depend on the Border for their power.

The Tánaiste once said that he wanted to make Ireland the best country in the world in which to raise a child. He is failing in that regard. We have a situation where we have record homelessness among children, spinal surgery waiting lists and children with special needs or disabilities who are waiting for supports. Many of the families of those children feel abandoned. If we make Ireland a better place in which to live, we will see a situation where those in the North who are currently undecided on the question of Irish unity will want to be part of this great country. In the event of a united Ireland, unionists in the North would actually have more influence and more of a say in their constituencies and in the running of their localities if they were sitting in the Dáil as opposed to in the British Parliament. They would make up a higher proportion of the membership of the Dáil than is the case at Westminster.

Aontú's leader, Deputy Peadar Tóibín, during his time on the Oireachtas enterprise committee, completed the first Oireachtas report on the all-island economy. The basic finding of the report was that every public service on the island would be better served by a united Ireland. The North's economy is in very bad shape because London is not interested in it. The North is primed to take off economically. It would do so if the foreign direct investment strategy that obtains in the South also obtained there. The North has more labour available and more people seeking work. It has a lower costs for labour, property and energy than is the case in the South. lf we were operating on an all-island basis, everyone would prosper economically.

I do not agree with the idea of a citizens' assembly because that is just kicking the can down the street. Éamon Ó Cuív famously said that we already have a citizens' assembly in this country, namely, the Dáil, and this is where we should debate the issue. That is why we have elections. That is why we go to the people. I think we should take this opportunity.

I have been listening to this debate in my office since Deputy Currie started her contribution. I always follow these debates on Irish unity with interest as someone who wants to see a united Ireland by consent. I note that this discussion is focusing on the fiscal elements required to help make it a reality, but these considerations can never be looked at in isolation. During my brief contribution, I will focus on some of the other elements as well.

It is clear that the fiscal and social realities of a potential united Ireland require a lot of actual planning rather than political rhetoric. I would be loath to call a border poll right now because of the risks associated with that, but if a border poll did occur, the State would have to be prepared for the huge structural disruptions that would follow, so we have to start working now - that is why this debate is welcome - without arrogantly presuming it is going to become a reality any time soon, and especially without alienating those of a different background and viewpoint whom we need to bring on board.

We have had discussions about the economic modelling showing the different scenarios and, in some cases, this has been weaponised, depending on one's political outlook. We had the ESRI's €20 billion figure mentioned as the worst-case scenario. We also have other gaps that are much smaller, like a ten-year phased transition, reducing the net annual cost to between €2.5 billion and €3 billion. We then had the middle figure of about €11 billion. We actually do not know how much it is going to cost but we do know it is going to cost something. The debate is really about whether one wants a united Ireland or not, and if we do want a united Ireland, we must be prepared to put up with the cost because there are going to be economic benefits as well as social ones down the line.

The middle-ground figure of €11 billion quoted earlier is more likely a realistic figure, even allowing for the fact that things sometimes become a lot more expensive in this country. Any transition to a united Ireland will require a lot of structural mechanisms, as the Tánaiste said. For example, adopting a single currency, getting rid of the exchange rate volatility and the transaction costs for cross-Border businesses are all advantages. Full re-entry into the EU Single Market for services and removing the jurisdictional barriers are all advantages and allow State bodies to plan for infrastructure, higher education and skills delivery on an all-Ireland basis.

However, the non-financial obstacles are equally severe. There are two parallel administrative systems. There are the healthcare services that others have referenced. Obviously, people in Northern Ireland really like their National Health Service. Merging that with our health service in terms of Sláintecare will require a huge amount of money.

The other angles would be the democratic implications of a vote. As I have mentioned in the House before, if a border poll passes by 52% to 48%, the legal threshold of the Good Friday Agreement is met but the social consensus is not and moving 800,000 citizens into a new state against their explicit, democratic will does risk causing civil unrest. Civil war has been mentioned as an outlier risk but we are talking about localised political polarisation, most likely, stuff that would actually stop a united Ireland from being as viable as it could be. Data from the Analysing and Researching Ireland North and South project confirms fears that loyalist paramilitary violence and instability could remain a deterrent to people voting for a united Ireland.

To mitigate those risks we need a lot of constitutional and institutional accommodation, necessary measures that people might have to swallow. Some have been mentioned in this House, such as a devolved regional assembly in Stormont to preserve local governance for the unionist community, a shared bill of rights protecting the dual Irish-British citizenship, and re-evaluating our relationship with the Commonwealth. Also, our symbols like the flag and the national anthem are things we hold very dear here, but we are going to have to take those risks and be as accommodating as possible. I hope it comes as soon as it is feasibly possible.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute briefly on this debate. I was listening to some of it. I echo some of the comments made by Deputy Gogarty about the provocative nature of some of the matters that he raised and the wide range of issues we would need to consider. We do not talk about the North in this House enough. I have been here ten years and it seems to me that we are only really beginning to have a discussion about it.

There is nothing for us to be afraid of once we have open minds, open hearts and are respectful to the stance that everyone else takes in this House. If we were to agree on something, it would be that we all want to live on an island that every single person on the island can call "home". If we were to start from there, it would be as good a starting point as any. However, it would also give a real indication of the challenges that lie ahead of us in order to make that feeling of home for everybody who lives on the island a real possibility.

That means there is a huge amount of work to be done. The shared island project is a clear example of the kind of work that can be done, dealing with tangible projects being delivered in a non-threatening way, either reinforcing historical, infrastructural connections that used to exist but were broken and re-establishing them or creating synergies on the island, and trust, dialogue and research in relation to specific projects.

However, we can be braver than that. I look at the things that partition robbed us of. We can outline a lot of them but I am thinking of how we had a natural federal system on this island with four provinces. It lends itself to a very natural system of federal government where there is a capital in each province determining - not ruling, but representing everybody in those provinces - and maybe a central government made up of representatives of those four provinces. Partition robbed us of that natural four-province political framework on the island.

Even if we were to start there and re-establish four provinces, we could see the concessions that would need to be made. We could say that Belfast was the natural capital of the province of Ulster. It would require concessions on the part of the three counties of Ulster that remain in the Republic. It would require concessions on the part of the Six Counties that are in Northern Ireland to incorporate the other three counties into the administrative system. I do not want to name what might be the capital cities of the other provinces because that could get me into an awful lot of trouble.

Dublin.

That simple structure in Ireland of four provinces offered and offers a very simple federal system that could be taken going forward, and then we would decide where central government is organised from. It would clearly have to have a Belfast dimension as well as a Dublin dimension.

I do not think one-upmanship in the House assists this because we all have ideas and they are all valid. I do not think there is any one Member or party that is the exclusive carrier of the flame or the ambition for unity.

In the foreign affairs committee, which I chair, we often meet diplomats from other countries and when we talk about this country I often describe it as an unfinished story. In the current debate, when we talk about security, defence and how Ireland is going to approach this, I always say Ireland is having a conversation about this for the first time. Nobody needs to pressurise us about this; we will make our decisions about it ourselves in a mature way. In the context of the Thirty-two Counties, we often do not remember that six counties of the country are essentially in NATO, for example. Deputy Gogarty referred to those kinds of conversations. They cannot just be one-way conversations. They are real conversations that have to be had. They lead me to the conclusion that the difficult considerations are not around how much it would cost but they will be about the give and take.

For example, let us say, hypothetically, that unionism would agree to a united Ireland if the Republic joined NATO. What kind of reaction would that receive? What kind of reaction would it receive on the opposite side of the House or this side of the House? As Deputy Gogarty asked - and I am not outlining a personal position on this - what if we said the price of a united Ireland was rejoining the Commonwealth? What would be the reaction to that? I am not suggesting we rejoin the Commonwealth but I think it is realistic to suggest that it might be a unionist part of the conversation we would have to have down the road.

We had a very interesting presentation by IBEC. Some of my colleagues across the floor were with us this morning when IBEC presented some of the real practical challenges that partition causes, particularly for people who work on the Border. There are real tax implications if they live in the Republic and work in the North, or if they live in the North and work in the Republic. We have not actually established some kind of common area or system that enables people to do that and it is actually hindering economic development and progress. IBEC has said that. I agree with Deputy Lawless as well, and this is not an attack on anybody's position. This is the citizens' assembly and I think we should trust ourselves to debate this as we are doing now, in a respectful way.

In regard to one of the things we can do as well, economically, so many people in the Republic have not been to the Six Counties. I think that is a real piece of work we need to continuously work on. I know we have the all-island tourist body and it has done phenomenal pieces. I am not the world's best traveller to the Six Counties but in the past two years, I have been up there at GAA matches following Dublin and Derry. I am thrilled to say I went to see the Heaney homeplace in Bellaghy. I have not been this year and I think it ought to be on our agenda to visit and to get to know it. It was difficult for us to do it in times gone past.

I want to say this as a Fianna Fáil politician. As someone who joined the party as a young man, one of the things that motivated me was that I wanted to see our country united. I still want to see our country united. I have learned, I think. I have listened, read and continue to listen. I remember sitting in the back seat of my parents' car as we crossed the Border for the first time, a British soldier talking to my father, seeing his gun and having an awful gut feeling about the idea that a British soldier would be stopping my father's car. I was from Dublin. I had no experience of what it was like to have occupying forces on my doorstep but I know it was a gut feeling. I also know that now I have travelled a long distance, it does not mean the notion of uniting the country has become diluted for me. I hope, however, that I recognise - if I come back to the point I started with - that if we want to create a place that everybody on the island can call home, then there needs to be a much more sophisticated conversation than maybe we have been used to.

The Government could do an awful lot more to lead on this. That is not a criticism; it is just an exhortation to say it needs to trust people, and to trust the people of the Republic to be able to have and cope with a sensitive conversation about sensitive issues. The sooner that conversation starts - here is a good place to kick it off - the sooner we discover the things that are on people's minds when it comes to a discussion about either uniting the people, uniting the territory, or creating a place all of us can call home.

Last week, the Dáil debated Irish unity during Opposition time and today, the conversation continues on Government time. This is a welcome and positive step.

The conversation about our constitutional future is moving forward and it is right that the Government begins the serious work of planning for constitutional change now. Across Ireland, more and more people are engaging in this discussion and asking what a united Ireland could mean for their families, communities and future generations. The national conversation is well under way and it is important that it is informed, inclusive and focused on the opportunities that lie ahead.

I welcome the fact that the Government is recognising this by scheduling this debate on the economics of Irish unity today. However, last week, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Independents failed in their duty and their constitutional obligations to make preparations for unity. The debacle arising from Brexit is all the evidence you need to plan for the future. Fail to prepare and prepare to fail.

In fairness, the biggest question I get when we discuss Irish unity is around how we are going to afford it. It is a genuine concern for the ordinary people I have conversations with on this island. It is based on the British subvention and the figures that are being bandied about. The figures frequently quoted as representing the British Government's annual subvention to the North is a British accounting exercise. For the purpose of this debate, any figures I reference will be in euro.

The total subvention includes central British Government costs allocated to the North that would not be relevant to a united Ireland and here is why. The subvention from the British Exchequer to the North was €16 billion in 2023. Recent analysis shows that the true deficit that would transfer to a united Ireland is approximately €1.7 billion. To put that in context, that is about 13% of the Apple tax money. The 2027 budget in the South will be over €125 billion, so the cost to the Irish State will only be 1.4% of the overall budget.

The single biggest factor of the British subvention to the North is pensions, which is around €6.8 billion. The cost of pensions is unlikely to transfer to a new Ireland. Many people living in Ireland already receive British pensions because they have worked in Britain and now they live here.

The second largest part of the subvention is the €4.1 billion that relates to public debt. Ireland would have no legal liability to pay any part of this. The cost of defence and international relations is approximately €2.7 billion and almost none of this expenditure relates to activity taking place in the North. This expenditure would not be carried over into a new Irish State. Taxes that are raised in the North would also now revert to a united Ireland. This includes taxes that are currently collected by Westminster, which would be used for the benefit of everybody on this island.

What is often overlooked are the economic benefits of a united Ireland. An all-island, all-Ireland economy would have huge benefits and would allow our nations to thrive once we remove the shackles of partition. Partition has failed everybody on this island. It has not allowed us, as a nation, to reach our full potential.

I also think it is important that we take the current financial situation in the North seriously. It is always disappointing when Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael use the North as a stick to beat Sinn Féin. Even the Labour Party used this tactic this week. The Six Counties have been held back from reaching their full potential because they have not seen the necessary investment.

Westminster holds the purse strings. The devolved institutions can only work with the budget that the British Government allocates to them, yet Sinn Féin as the lead party in the Assembly is working tirelessly to deliver for all the communities in the North. That does not stop Micheál Martin or Simon Harris from bringing in clippings or printouts and standing up in the Dáil with a big "gotcha" moment. That is beneath them. The people of the North deserve more respect than that.

My colleagues in the Assembly would love to have the huge surpluses that the Government in the South has in every budget but they spend every single penny on the people in the North. If Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael want to criticise us, our tactics and what we do up in the North, I suggest that they run candidates in the elections there next year.