Terminal 2 at night (Taken from Dublin Airport Authority website)
Dublin Airport’s Terminal 2 will open tomorrow, Friday, November 19th. Its unveiling will act as the last major infrastructural project established during the boom years. Undoubtedly, the Dublin Airport Authority, as well as the political advocates of the project never envisaged that the terminal would eventually open amidst decreasing passenger numbers at Dublin Airport brought about by a deep economic recession. However, this is where the irony of Terminal 2 only begins.
The TV advertising campaign beginning the week prior to the terminal’s opening features actor David Murray making his way through the new terminal, musing on Ireland’s contribution to the world. This “small island in a big ocean” is responsible for the Beaufort scale, literary greats such as Yeats and Swift, and in the world of sport we have sent “champion horses” to all corners of the globe. The inference in this being that when people come to Ireland full of expectations about this influential little country, Terminal 2 will be their first indication that yes, indeed, it is great. A second inference is that when we send the best of what we have out to the world in the future, this ultra-modern facility will make that endeavour a more pleasant one. It is the latter inference that hints at the second irony of Terminal 2.
Announcing the latest round of budgetary cuts and savings to be included in Budget 2011, the Irish government indicated that their expectation that 40,000 people will emigrate in that year was factored into their calculation. In effect, for the government’s budgetary strategy for 2011 to be successful, they now need at least 40,000 to leave the country. Previous posts to this blog by Rob Kitchin and Cian O’Callaghan point out that it is the young, highly educated cohort that are most likely to leave first. So, heralded as a necessity brought about by a passenger boom which reflected the growing personal wealth of the Irish, and Ireland’s increasing popularity as a tourist destination, the reality of terminal 2’s early years at least, will be the manner in which it becomes the physical site where we export those highly educated, high skilled people who were produced by, and helped fuel the economic boom that brought that very site into existence. How ironic.
Today, the day prior to the terminal’s official opening, representatives of the IMF, the ECB and the European Commission are in Dublin to discuss a financial ‘bail-out’ in the guise of a ‘substantial loan’ to the State. Of course, it was the pursuance of imprudent policies within the banking sector and within the Department of Finance – partially manifested through the construction of many costly ‘monuments to prosperity’ such as the Dublin Port Tunnel, the IFSC, the Convention Centre Dublin, and of course Terminal 2 – that has ultimately resulted in that visit. Wouldn’t it be ironic if these ‘bail-out chiefs’ were the first to pass through the airport terminal that owes much of its origins to the fiscal flippancy and short-sighted government expenditure programmes that made their visit necessary in the first place?
John Watters
Ireland after NAMA 
November 18, 2010 at 5:28 pm
@John
“‘monuments to prosperity’ such as the Dublin Port Tunnel, the IFSC, the Convention Centre Dublin, and of course Terminal 2 ”
This list lacks balance. Why leave the following out of your listing eg. LUAS, the new County Council offices all around the country, motorways, etc?
The activities within IFSC contributed to getting us out of the 1980s crisis and also expanded the tax base. It is export oriented just like Glen Dimplex, Ryanair, Riverdance, U2, Kerry Foods, and many others. It results in steady work at decent wages for many in addition to multiplier effects.
Yes, the property oriented aspects overtook the original purpose, similar to the Johnson Mooney and O’Brien Telecom Eireann HQ Ballsbridge mess of the 1980s.
Yes, the Port Tunnel was costly. Its origins go back to the 1970s at least, when an Eastern Bypass was proposed to take through traffic out of Dublin City. The aim of the DPT was to improves access to Dublin Port – site of the the largest import/export activity in the state.
“…fiscal flippancy and short-sighted government expenditure programmes ” are eivdent in failures to manage current cost programmes (eg. benchmarking, low standards in parts of the senior public service)and reform the tax base along lines suggested during the 1980s and again in the latest Tax Commission report.
In your listing, you do not mention the failure of boards and senior management
of banks/other financial institutions to exercise a proper fiduciary responsibility and duty of care
Why do you not mention this aspect of how we do things – which IMO is what actually makes the visit of the ECB/EU Commission/IMF necessary?
November 18, 2010 at 11:45 pm
November 20, 2010 at 11:06 am
What would have been the best way of controlling the boom ask yourself? Some means of control on our own interest rates should come high on your list.
November 20, 2010 at 2:06 pm
I see Ireland as something of a cesspool. Only those with a very strong stomach can take it. The rest leave.
This emigration policy is part of a scheme to keep Ireland weak. As was the stuffing of the banks with funds to loan. As is the haste to lend yet more “money” that will never benefit Ireland or its inhabitants.
Ireland in 1840: 8 Million
England in 1840:10 Million
Work out the populations now!
November 22, 2010 at 9:41 am
Donal,
Regarding these “monuments to prosperity”, this brief list was meant to be illustrative of my point rather than exhaustive. The point is, this is how such projects appear to me, how I see them. Sure you, and others, will see them differently. This was an observation piece, not an authoritative economic analysis. For example, you ask why I didn’t include the Luas in my list. I do not view the Luas as a vanity project, rather it is a much needed piece of transport infrastructure that has been operating almost to capacity since its inception ~(in fact Red Line trams had to be made longer after a year to meet demand). Terminal 2’s opening, on the other hand, will not be met with such demand, therefore I think we could have waited for another few years for its construction, for a time where we may have been able to secure cheaper contracts even, or we could have built a terminal half the size now?
As you point out, the working of the IFSC has changed somewhat from it’s original design, but I also see lots of the physical terrain of the IFSC such as the expensive bridges and so on as ‘monumental’ to a prosperity that was not sustained, nor sustainable.
But you may disagree, this is fine. This piece was written from a particular positionality, as was your response. One’s vantage point will always inflect one’s view.
John.