Brexit was sold as a means of restoring national sovereignty and loosening ties with European institutions. Yet on the island of Ireland, it produced an unexpected outcome. Rather than weakening cross-border cooperation, it renewed political, financial and institutional support for it. In doing so, Brexit helped generate a new wave of investment and engagement that continues to reshape relationships North and South.

By TS Flynn

The Fear That Brexit Would Break the Peace Dividend

When the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union in June 2016, concern spread rapidly across the island of Ireland. For more than two decades, Northern Ireland had benefited from a range of European funding programmes that supported reconciliation, economic development and cross-border cooperation. These initiatives had become woven into the fabric of the peace process. Communities, local councils, businesses, educational institutions and civic organisations had all become accustomed to operating within an integrated European framework. The concern was understandable because Northern Ireland would become the only part of the United Kingdom sharing a land border with the European Union. Many feared that Brexit would undermine the practical cooperation that had developed since the Good Friday Agreement and weaken structures that had helped stabilise relations across the island.

There were legitimate questions about whether funding streams would continue, whether cross-border institutions could remain effective and whether a harder border might reintroduce tensions that previous generations had worked so hard to overcome. For a time, it appeared entirely possible that Brexit would weaken many of the mechanisms that had helped support peace and cooperation. The potential loss of European funding created anxiety among community groups, local authorities and organisations that relied upon cross-border partnerships. Much of the public discussion focused on what Ireland might lose rather than what might replace existing arrangements. Few expected Brexit to generate a significant expansion of cross-border investment. The assumption in many quarters was that separation would inevitably result in less cooperation. Events would unfold very differently.

An Unexpected Response

What happened next was unexpected. Rather than diminishing interest in cross-border cooperation, Brexit prompted governments and institutions to reconsider how important that cooperation had become. The prospect of new barriers highlighted the value of relationships and structures that many had previously taken for granted. In that sense, Brexit did not create a new commitment to cooperation. Instead, it renewed appreciation for an existing one.

My own interest in this subject is partly professional. Through senior roles with the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), the Northern Territory Treasury and a range of public-sector governance positions, I spent much of my career evaluating major spending proposals and monitoring the implementation of large-scale projects. Experience has taught me that institutions often contract under geopolitical stress. Yet on the island of Ireland, the response to Brexit was strikingly different. Rather than retreating, governments and institutions chose to expand cooperation and increase investment in shared projects. In many respects, Brexit triggered a process of adaptation that few observers anticipated.

Policymakers in Brussels, Dublin, Belfast and London gradually arrived at a similar conclusion. If Brexit risked creating new barriers, then additional effort would be required to preserve existing relationships and maintain practical cooperation. In effect, Brexit created incentives to invest more heavily in cross-border structures rather than abandon them. What many anticipated would be a period of disengagement instead became a period of renewal. The political logic was straightforward. If new regulatory and economic complexities threatened established connections, then governments would need to work harder to preserve them. Cooperation became more important precisely because the wider political environment had become more uncertain. Far from retreating, institutions responded by investing in resilience.

The clearest example was the creation of the PEACEPLUS Programme. Rather than allowing previous European funding arrangements to fade away, the European Union, the Irish Government, the British Government and Northern Ireland institutions combined earlier PEACE and INTERREG programmes into a new initiative worth approximately €1.145 billion. The programme was designed to support peace, prosperity and cross-border cooperation throughout Northern Ireland and the border counties of Ireland. Importantly, it represented not a reduction in ambition but an expansion of it. It became the largest peace and reconciliation programme ever established for the region. At a moment when many expected Brexit to weaken cooperation, governments collectively chose to strengthen it. That decision revealed much about how policymakers viewed the future of the island.

The Logic Behind PEACEPLUS

The philosophy underpinning PEACEPLUS is remarkably simple. Political stability is easier to sustain when communities enjoy economic opportunity, effective public services and meaningful engagement with one another. Rather than focusing solely on constitutional questions, the programme invests in youth development, environmental sustainability, healthcare cooperation, community regeneration and economic transformation. It seeks to strengthen relationships that make conflict less likely and cooperation more attractive. The objective is not to eliminate political disagreements but to create conditions in which those disagreements can be managed constructively. PEACEPLUS therefore reflects a practical rather than ideological approach to peacebuilding. It focuses on shared interests rather than competing identities.

But for the finance professional, the true interest lies in the practical mechanics of delivery. Across multiple sectors, PEACEPLUS and related investment programmes have sought to strengthen the practical infrastructure that underpins cooperation. Transport, environmental projects, healthcare partnerships and community initiatives all reflect a broader strategy of maintaining connections in a more complicated post-Brexit environment. The significance of these programmes lies not merely in the money spent but in their ability to keep institutions, communities and economies working together across jurisdictional boundaries. In practical terms, they represent a conscious effort to reduce friction where new political and regulatory complexities have emerged. The underlying assumption is that cooperation becomes more resilient when supported by tangible assets, shared investments and ongoing partnerships. That assumption has guided much of the policy response to Brexit.

Lasting political settlements are rarely secured by constitutional arrangements alone. Institutions matter. Agreements matter. Elections matter. Yet citizens also judge political systems through practical experience. They notice whether jobs are available, whether infrastructure works, whether services function efficiently and whether cooperation produces visible benefits. Stable societies are typically built not merely on political agreements but on the trust that develops when those agreements improve daily life. This insight has shaped peacebuilding efforts in many parts of the world. Northern Ireland is no exception. Practical cooperation often succeeds where political rhetoric struggles.

Brexit and the Shared Island Initiative

The Irish Government's Shared Island Initiative emerged within this same context. It operates as a distinct but complementary programme backed by a unilateral €2 billion commitment extending to 2035 and seeks to strengthen practical cooperation across the island through investment, dialogue and research. When combined with the €1.145 billion PEACEPLUS allocation, more than €3.1 billion has effectively been committed to initiatives designed to strengthen connections across the island. Projects range from transport corridors and environmental programmes to community engagement and policy development. Like PEACEPLUS, the initiative focuses on practical outcomes rather than constitutional arguments. It attempts to demonstrate what cooperation can achieve rather than merely debate what cooperation might mean. The emphasis is always on delivery rather than symbolism.

There is a strong argument that Brexit renewed the political logic behind the Shared Island Initiative. The prospect of new regulatory, economic and political barriers highlighted the importance of maintaining connections across the island. Rather than encouraging disengagement, Brexit encouraged policymakers to think more creatively about preserving and deepening existing relationships. What had once been viewed as desirable increasingly came to be viewed as necessary. Brexit did not invent the case for cooperation. It reminded governments why that case existed in the first place.

The result was a greater focus on transport links, environmental cooperation, economic partnerships and institutional collaboration. Ironically, a political project designed to loosen connections with Europe helped stimulate investment in mechanisms designed to strengthen connections within Ireland. The outcome was not what many observers in either camp had anticipated. Brexit became an argument for cooperation rather than a reason to abandon it.

Lessons from Germany

Ireland is not the first place to experience this dynamic. Following German reunification in 1990, the German Government quickly discovered that constitutional change was only the beginning of a much longer process. Through successive Solidarpakt I and Solidarpakt II arrangements, Germany committed vast public resources toward modernising infrastructure, strengthening institutions and supporting economic development in the former East Germany. Some estimates place the total cost of reunification at more than €2 trillion over the three decades that followed reunification. The objective was not simply political union but economic and social integration. Rebuilding infrastructure, strengthening local economies and improving living standards became national priorities. German policymakers quickly learned that constitutional change was far easier than practical integration.

The lesson for Ireland is sobering. Political unification can occur in a matter of months, but true social and economic integration is a multi-decade endeavour. Reunification must be experienced in everyday life if it is to be sustained politically. If Germany required decades of sustained investment and still continues to debate aspects of integration more than thirty years later, it serves as a reminder that integration is rarely completed by constitutional change alone. Infrastructure, institutions and public confidence require continual investment. For Ireland, the lesson is not that the Shared Island Fund can replicate the German experience, but that practical integration demands patience, competence and consistent delivery. Even substantial funding commitments can quickly lose political value if projects fail to achieve their stated objectives.

The Irony of Brexit

Perhaps the greatest irony of Brexit is that it strengthened awareness of how interconnected Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland had become. For decades, European membership provided an overarching framework within which differences could be managed. Once that framework appeared uncertain, policymakers became more aware of the practical importance of preserving economic, social and institutional links. Brexit did not create North-South cooperation. That cooperation already existed. What Brexit did was remind governments of its value. In doing so, it encouraged new investments in initiatives designed to maintain and deepen those relationships. Sometimes political disruption reveals the importance of arrangements that previously went unnoticed.

This does not mean Brexit strengthened support for Irish unity. That would be too simplistic. Constitutional opinion remains complex and contested. What can be said with greater confidence is that Brexit strengthened support for practical cooperation. Programmes such as PEACEPLUS and initiatives such as the Shared Island Fund demonstrate that governments continue to see value in shared projects, shared infrastructure and shared institutions. Whatever one's constitutional preferences, that represents a significant development. Cooperation is no longer being treated simply as a by-product of peace. It is increasingly being treated as a policy objective in its own right. The implications of that shift may continue to unfold for many years.

Beyond Brexit

History often produces unintended consequences. Few supporters of Brexit imagined that leaving the European Union would help renew political support for some of the largest cross-border investment programmes ever undertaken on the island of Ireland. Yet that is arguably what occurred. Faced with uncertainty, governments and institutions elected not to retreat from cooperation but to reinforce it through practical investment. Whether those investments ultimately prove transformative remains to be seen. Their success will depend, as always, on governance, delivery and public confidence. The story remains unfinished, and its full implications may not become clear for many years.

What is already apparent, however, is that Brexit did not bring an end to cross-border cooperation. Instead, it renewed the case for it. By challenging existing assumptions, Brexit highlighted the practical importance of the relationships, institutions and infrastructure that link communities across the island. A project designed to loosen political ties ultimately prompted a renewed investment in cooperation. Whether that cooperation eventually influences constitutional preferences remains uncertain. What is clear is that Brexit encouraged policymakers to place greater value on practical collaboration than they might otherwise have done. In that respect, its legacy may prove to be very different from the one many expected.

About the Author

TS Flynn is an Irish-Australian writer and commentator focusing on Irish history, politics, public policy and governance, with extensive professional experience evaluating major public spending and infrastructure projects.

Hashtags

#Brexit #PEACEPLUS #SharedIsland #NorthernIreland #Ireland #PublicPolicy #IrishPolitics #CrossBorderCooperation #EuropeanUnion #Governance #TSFlynn #TheWildGeese