Brexit

I have not written anything for 4 years - a blog post, a letter to the Irish Times, anything - apart from immediate social media tripe and photos. I assumed I would leave the political commentary to be written by the professionals rather than part-time finance types like myself. Failure to win a journalistic scholarship and with a determination to move onwards and forward, I had left journalism in the past despite a promising start. The euro crisis had seen a rather anti-climactic resolution and in 2012, we seemed to be in a post-climactic Europe and world. I should have foreseen the migrant crisis but I could not have guessed that a British PM would have gambled its' country's future on internal European disputes.

I moved to the UK a year ago for several reasons - professional, cultural and political. I still despaired for Irish politics when we are so behind in so many ways and I used this despair to claim the moral high ground once I moved. I realised Cameron had called for an EU poll in 2013, but like so many liberal types, I had presumed this would be easily won - the UK's outgoing viewpoint vindicated.

The disconnect between London and the rest of England has never been so pronounced and the fact that I did not know a single Leave voter verifies this. With the polls and Bloomberg vindicating my view that the UK would remain in the EU, I nodded off on Thursday night in good spirits. The feeling upon my waking up was one of shock and horror - I could not believe that the UK had left. I mention the UK but it is clear that 2 of the 4 countries in the UK had left - England and Wales. This fact raises its own constitutional issues but I wish to conclude on the effect Brexit had made on this EU national.

I decided to wait a few days to make this point - overly emotive on the day it happened and not wishing to make a tit of myself. It is now Sunday evening after the result and those emotions remain - feelings of unwelcome, alienation and suspicion.  Just like Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty will set a stopwatch to the UK's EU membership, this vote has set a similar timeframe to EU nationals feeling betrayed by England'S small mindedness. EU members living in England like myself feel betrayed and England's claim to cosmopolitanism will never be real again.

Spanish bailout - the straw that broke the camel's back?

Despite the intense debate which surrounded the Fiscal Treaty, and ultimately its passing by the Irish people two weeks ago, its overall impact on the Euro crisis discourse has proven to be minimal.  The speculation had immediately turned to the details of a Spanish bailout, a prospect that would have been ridiculed only three years ago.  No matter what pans out in the Euro zone, the only certainty is that nothing has proven to be outside the realms of possibility. 

While there was bound to be apprehension within Brussels and Frankfurt at the prospect of a lack of a democratic mandate for the controversial terms, the conservative nature of the Irish electorate was predictable.  Despite the fact that the main political parties are deemed to be untrustworthy by vast swathes of the population due to the undelivered promises of the last election, the fact that the vast majority of the political and academic establishment was behind the Treaty – however grudgingly – was a major reason behind the overwhelming yes vote.  The requirement of years of austerity was seen as a lesser evil than the unpredictable consequences of Ireland leaving the Eurozone, an outcome that probably would have been brought about by a negative vote.  Another decisive factor was the reassurance provided by the facility of the ESM if, as expected, we need a second bailout.  Of course, the viability of the ESM is still questionable, given its inadequate size and the threat of contagion sparked by the Spanish banking crisis.

In relation to Spain, the necessity of even a partial bailout has not exactly been a secret.  The scale of the property crash over there has been comparable to Ireland, and the requirement for extra capital on the scale of Ireland’s was always going to be an eventuality.  While the leaders of Spain and the EU are trying to keep a clear divide between the Spanish banking problem and the sovereign, no matter what happens the cost will have to be borne by Spanish taxpayers, or through the ESFS.  

The likelihood of a successful Spanish bailout is unlikely, but one for Spain and Italy is impossibility.  There is simply not enough cash reserves, or economic growth, within the EU to be able to put up E600-700 billion euro for bailouts for two of the largest economies in the EU.  The stringent terms of the Fiscal Compact are a not-so-obvious predecessor to Eurobonds and a European Department of Finance, two outcomes that may be announced in the conference being held in two weeks.  Once again, Merkel and Burroso will claim the outcomes of the conference as being a resolution of the crisis.  There will be a lull of perhaps a few months; things might begin to look up.  But then, as before, further crises will envelop the euro – be they economic or political - requiring more drastic action. It was always thus.

The Most Important Election of the Year?

As the Euro crisis rages on, Nicolas Sarkozy faces an uphill struggle for re-election. Current Affairs Editor Jerry Larkin asks - will Angela Merkel's support aid his campaign or prove to be a kiss of death?


After a year which saw both a general and presidential election take place in this part of the world, any Irish person could be forgiven for having election fatigue. However, with major elections happening in France in April and in the US in November, political hacks have much more drama to look forward to this year. The French election, in particular, promises to be a closely-run contest, given the fractured nature of French politics. Along with the two main parties – Sarkozy's UMP and the Parti Socialiste which will fight the election with François Hollande as their candidate – there is also the Parti communiste français (PCF), the Front National, the Green Party and the centrist Democratic Movement led by François Bayrou, along with many more smaller niche parties. The French political system is fairly unique in the way that the president is elected, with a first round taking place on 22nd of April. The top two candidates from that round will advance to the second round of voting which takes place two weeks later and is a straight face-off between the two candidates.

At the time of writing, Sarkozy still had not officially announced that he is running, although the feeling amongst the media in France is that he is paving the way for an imminent announcement by making prominent speeches and taking populist positions in the last couple of months. The French President had been sliding in the polls in the last year or so, with small successes like the overthrowing of Gadaffi in Libya doing little to prevent this decline. In having an approval rating of 32 percent, Sarkozy is the most unpopular French President since World War II. Indeed, his reputation is such that they were rumours circulating amongst the French twitterati that the recent birth of his fourth child with Carla Bruni was timed to roughly coincide with the election. Although he is currently 10 points behind Hollande in the opinion polls, he has the significant advantage of incumbency – the French have historically been reluctant to vote against a sitting President.

While Sarkozy's popularity has hit a nadir in the last year, Hollande's star has been on the rise. He had to fight a primary election within the Parti Socialiste (PS) last year, beating five other candidates, including the PS leader Martine Aubry and the 2007 PS candidate Ségolène Royal. The primary election certainly provided the French media with many column inches, given the fact that Royal and Hollande had been partners for over 30 years, before they separated in 2007. Despite this personal history, Royal and the other candidates have rowed in behind Hollande since his nomination. The seemingly serene state of the Socialists is in marked contrast to the turmoil of last summer, brought about by the arrest and subsequent trial of Dominque Strauss-Kahn (ubiquitously known in France as DSK). Many in France thought him to be the automatic challenger to Sarkozy and a certain winner of this election, although the rape trial saga ended that scenario comprehensively.
However, followers of the Socialists must be pleasantly surprised that the negative publicity surrounding DSK did not overly impact their presidential bid. Hollande has taken a decisive swing to the left since his nomination, and a victory for him would see a sea-change in the European consensus of austerity and punishing smaller states for supposed fiscal irresponsibility. Despite this, the last Socialist President Mitterand was forced to lurch to the right midway through his first term due to global economic pressures, and this may be a factor in an Hollande presidency.

Another important element of the upcoming French election is the performance in the opinion polls of Martine Le Pen for the Front National. She has performed extremely well, running currently in third place, with some speculating that she could make the second round if Sarkozy's campaign falters. That scenario would be a near-repeat of the election of 2002, where her father Jean-Marie defeated the Socialist candidate to proceed into the second round against Jacques Chirac. Such was the fury on behalf of the ordinary voter that Chirac won in a landslide. However it would be foolish to dismiss Le Pen, largely because of the French equivalent of the 'Shy Tory' effect, where voters are afraid to speak publicly of their support for an extreme candidate. Le Pen has built herself up as an anti-establishment option for French voters sick of the UMP and the PS orthodoxy, and this may appeal to many voters with unemployment at a 12 year high.

A final unpredictable element of this election is the pledge by Merkel to rally behind Sarkozy in his campaign. An alliance between French and German leaders is not without precedent – Chirac and Shroeder combined to condemn the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and in 1992 Helmet Kohl and Mitterand forced through the Maastricht Treaty. However this show of strength is different, and how this support will actually manifest itself is unclear. This step has already been criticised by Hollande and others in France as an unwelcome foray into another country's political process. There has also been apprehension shown in Germany for the support, with some Germans feeling that Merkel should be concentrating fully on the Euro crisis and not on an unrelated election. However, it is clear that - as the second most influential government in the EU - the upcoming election in France is intertwined with the outcome of the Euro crisis, and the eventual political direction which the EU will take in the future. Whether Merkel's public campaigning on behalf of Sarkozy will help or hinder his re-election prospects is not yet clear, but in this globalised political climate, the result of the 6th of May will have very real consequences for every citizen of the European Union.

The above article was published in the February edition of Motley magazine. Apologies for the delayed analysis!

Fiscal Compact - A Vote to Institutionalise Austerity

To the great annoyance of the Government, Attorney General Máire Whelan has advised Taoiseach Enda Kenny that a referendum on the proposed Fiscal Compact is a legal necessity, and the referendum is expected to be called for June of this year. This Treaty is unique over previous referendums in that it is a relatively short document – only 10 pages long - but it contains extremely abstract issues, which are not clear on first reading. The concern shown in some quarters that it will be extremely difficult to explain these issues and their consequences to the everyday man and woman is valid, but nonetheless patronising to the electorate, particularly considering the numerous long-term consequences which this treaty will bring about. A yes or no vote will have severe repercussions for every Irish person – not just economists.

The need for a more integrated fiscal policy in the Eurozone is legitimate (if you believe in the value of European monetary union), and many argue that the lack of clear budgetary rules is the reason why the Eurozone is teetering on the brink in the first place. Looking back at the debate over the establishment of the single currency, it is surprising that there was so little coverage given to the lack of fiscal unity – it appears ridiculous that monetary union was not followed directly by greater oversight on government spending. The Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) was supposed to address this shortfall of the euro experiment, but this proved to be toothless. That fact was not helped by the reckless behaviour of France and Germany, who both breached the terms of the SGP in 2003 - giving the green light to the PIIGS economies to follow suit. This belies the narrative of the EU – that it was solely the PIIGS countries who spent too much, and that all they need is a dose of medecine in the form of austerity and German economic orthodoxy. As well as being extremely simplistic, this argument is just plain wrong. I am against monetary union, as I believe it does not take into account the economic circumstances in peripheral countries like Ireland when it comes to decision-making – the considerations of Germany and France are paramount to the ECB. It is apparant that having full monetary union without any form of fiscal union is like owning a car with no access to the car keys. However, when signing up to join the euro I think the Irish government wanted all of the advantages of a single currency, with none of the responsibilities.

The terms of the Fiscal Compact appear to be identical to the Stability and Growth Pact, and in the most part the Fiscal Compact is just a legal tool to put the SGP into primary legislation in the 25 countries which signed up to it (the United Kingdom and Czech Republic decided not to enter the agreement and this will have unintended consequences for Ireland, given our close economic relationship to the UK). However, there are also more stringent requirements in the Fiscal Compact, such as a limit of 60% of national debt. This requirement is in the SGP, but under the new agreement, the target for it would be closer to 25% in order to factor in any macroeconomic shocks to a country. As well as cutting government expenditure in the long-term, with all the negative connotations for growth, this would also encourage investors around the Eurozone to buy riskier investments, due to the decrease in issuing government bonds. Within the Fiscal Compact, there is also the condition that the annual structural defecit must not exceed 0.5% of nominal GDP. Despite the fact that this is quite hard to measure and open to subjective analysis, this would have consequences for governments' ability to invest in their economy, and makes Keynesian policies apparantly difficult to implement.

In addition, the Government's stance on the Treaty is hypocritical. On the one hand, they maintain that the state will be back financing itself on the bond market next year, when the bailout deal runs out. They are adamant that a second bailout – like the one Greece had to apply for – is not necessary, and that Ireland will be the first country to exit a bailout programme in the Eurozone. On the other hand, once a country ratifies the Fiscal Compact, it will be able to avail of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which is the fund set up to finance future bailouts if (or indeed) when they are required. The Government is arguing for a yes vote to the referendum on the off chance that Ireland needs a bailout in the future. This position is facetious and disengenous – the Government should pick a clear position on the issue instead of flip-flopping like it is currently doing.

There is also the fact to consider that many economists do not believe that the Fiscal Compact would have prevented our current economic crisis. Expenditure by Ireland in the Celtic Tiger years grew at an unsustainable level, on the back of tax take from a property bubble and a fake illusion of wealth. There is an expenditure growth rule present in the SGP which would have alleviated our current plight if it had been enforced, but this is not in the Fiscal Compact. To sum up, I do believe the Fiscal Compact will be passed, as the Irish electorate have been proven to be wary when the facts are not clear-cut. All I can hope for is that the debate is clear of scare-mongering, on both sides.

Euro Debt Crisis - The End Game for the Euro

The Euro debt crisis is increasingly resembling the film Groundhog Day, without the comedic relief, of course. Every time the European leaders appear to devise a long-lasting, concrete set of solutions for the crisis, they are immediately discarded as insufficient by the markets. The latest attempt of a compromise at the G-20 summit in Cannes, France resulted in an agreement to set aside more money to recapitalise the troubled European banking sector (which have taken a hit with the partial default in Greece and the increasing uncertainty around the currency), and increasing the effective capacity of the European Financial Stability Fund – the bailout fund established in 2010 - to €1 trillion (although this will be achieved through leveraging, which does not mean that the amount is immediately available). German attempts to get funding from so-called BRIC countries to help shore up the EFSF was unsuccessful, presumably because these countries do not wish to contribute to helping maintain the high living standards that Europeans have come to expect, and for which they seek to emulate.

These measures, however, have done nothing to reassure the markets of the sustainability of the Euro, with Italy paying a record high of 6.5% interest on 6-month bonds on November 25^th – an increase of nearly double of what was paid the previous month. Even more incredibly, the only country that was thought to be immune from the Euro crisis, Germany, failed to sell all €6 billion in 10-year bonds, with the Bundesbank being forced to purchase 40% of the bonds. In addition to these worrying developments, the bond yields of Eurozone countries are creeping ever upwards, forcing speculation of bailouts for Spain, Italy, and even France. The impracticality (most economists would say impossibility) of such bailouts for the giant economies of the Eurozone has sped up the search for an ultimate solution – to reach some kind of end game for the Euro.

It is obvious now to many commentators the previous dogma which stated that the cause of the crisis was simply due to over-spending, lazy continental economies was overly-simplistic, and did not acknowledge the great advantage of the Euro to the big economies – particularly Germany. Although Germany benefited hugely from the introduction of the Euro, Chancellor Merkel is reluctant to contribute her fair share for the saving of the currency. Instead, a German attitude to fiscal matters is being demanded of all countries in the Eurozone – particularly within the PIIGS countries – with the proviso that Germany may shoulder some burden in the future.

The political consequences of this attitude have been highlighted many times in the media, with new technocratic, ECB-friendly governments being appointed in Greece and Italy (without any general elections, it must be added). The political crisis in Greece appeared to be intensified by the Franco-German threat that it could be thrown out of the Eurozone, if it does not play by their rules. Although this threat could have been construed as a poker play by Merkel and Sarcozy to shore up Greek resolve for austerity, it backfired spectacularly and caused further turmoil to the already fatally-damaged regime of George Papandreou.

The gravity of the situation is being underlined by European leaders, with many linking the fate of the Euro to that of the whole European Union. EU President Herman Van Rompuy had previously said - "If we don’t survive with the Eurozone we will not survive with the European Union.". Nobody expects short-term changes like beefing up the EFSF, or appointing different governments in Italy and Greece to really solve the crisis, and there are wildly different ideas on how to go about it. The primary solution to this day has been for fiscal stability – cutting spending and increasing taxes, as well as privatisation. While some may view this exercise as essential for indebted nations, it can also be argued that this course of action has seriously depressed domestic demand, and caused the economies in Greece and Ireland to deflate, which then requires harsher fiscal measures.

A more long-term option available for policy-makers is for the establishment of Eurobonds. This has been proposed by the European Commission and remains a viable, though controversial, option. Although the eventual make-up of Eurobonds is highly disputed, the main premise of them is that the 17 members of the Eurozone jointly issue a government bond, with a single bond yield for all countries. This would lower the borrowing costs for risky, high-debt, high-yield economies such as the PIIGS countries, as well as speeding up the re-introduction of the bailout countries into private bond auctions. However, it would also increase the costs for low-risk countries such as France and Germany, and a trade-off of closer fiscal integration would be an inevitable prerequisite for this measure.

An increasingly likely option which is being pushed by Merkel and Sarcozy is for tighter supervision of national budgets, with severe penalties for countries that break specific targets. This is aimed at preventing another Greek case of a country spending way beyond its means, as well as increasing market confidence in the Eurozone. There is a sense of déjà vu with this proposal, however, as it resembles the previous Stability and Growth Pact – which Germany and France broke numerous times in the past. To counter this similarity, it is planned that the European Court of Justice would be given powers to ensure that irresponsible governments are punished should they go beyond the set criteria. Although this move would be welcomed by several European governments, it would almost definitely requires Treaty changes, and it is hard to see how these could be passed at the hands of the Irish people.

And finally, there is the spectre of a nightmare solution – the break-up of the Euro itself. This is the scenario that everyone dreads, but which increases in probability for every day in which European leaders dither. The only certainty is that a final solution to the Euro sovereign debt crisis will be fraught with more political-wrangling, back-room negotiating - and will require a genuine sense of compromise.

Ageism - of who?

Last weekend I was in Dublin to attend a national meeting of Labour Youth (why these meetings can never be held outside of the Pale I don't know, but that's another story).  We drove from Cork (in only two hours it has to be said) and took the Luas from the Red Cow park and ride facility to the city centre.  On the way in, I couldn't help but notice that on every stop there were posters highlighting the issue of ageism.  A worthy cause, no doubt.  The recent controversy over the pension levy on private pensions, as well as these posters, made me stop and think about the whole issue of ageing.  The more I thought about it, the more I realised that the public discourse on this issue is dominated by the question of looking after older people, and that another form of ageism is being obscured – the obstacles facing young people.

   Hear me out.  Young people are in an age group which is most at risk to a whole plethora of dangers, some social and some economic.  These include a much higher risk of depression and suicide, emigration, psychological disorders such as self-harming, bulimia and anorexia, unemployment (unemployment amongst young people is around 20% on the last count, against a national average of 14%), road deaths and STIs.  While some of these dangers are due to naiveté and ignorance (such as speeding or not using contraception), the vast chunk of them are due to wider societal and economic factors and attitudes.  There is no doubt that there are massive challenges for older people, and I do not seek to belittle these hardships.  However, I believe that at the moment in Ireland there is an attitude amongst some of the media and politicians, as well as the general public, which is entirely dismissive of young people and their talents.  This is the first generation of young people in decades which will have a worse standard of living than their parents.  Positive coverage of technological innovation or charity work amongst young people is overwhelmed by negative headlines concerning young hoodlums, unresponsible teenage mothers and excessive boozing (or sometimes all three together).  Of course all these stereotyped characters exist, but that is why a stereotype is a stereotype – they are rarely true.

  I believe the best time to be a teenager in Ireland was probably in the early noughties.  The Celtic Tiger was roaring, registration fees for third-level education were negligable and someone was spoiled for choice when it came to jobs.  Some Celtic Cubs even got cars and holidays for their birthdays as a matter of course.  During this time, the middle-aged professional classes were mortgaging their childrens' futures by buying second and third houses at highly-inflated prices.  These property gambles have now of course been proven to be reckless, and who is going to foot the bill through NAMA? The taxpayer, and more specifically, the younger generation.  While I'm sure that most middle class taxpayers bought homes in good faith, thinking that the price was only going to go higher, they must share a portion of the blame for the collapse.

   Evidently the blame (or even the majority of the blame) is not exclusive to mortgagees – the banks and politicians were the ones who fostered and encouraged this culture of greed and recklessness.  Ireland became a moral wasteland in which wealth and status were seemingly all that mattered to people.  What do all these major actors have in common?  They are all middle-aged.  Of course, this is nothing to be ashamed about.  But what really annoys me is that those in charge of our economy, and our wider society, seem to have forgetten to have empathy with those that are different to themselves – this includes the elderly, the poor and young people. 

  For example, the first cutbacks in the education sector were not aimed at those in administration or the highest earners - they were aimed at cutting the number of special-need teachers, as well as steadily raising the registration fee, so that now it is a tuition fee in all but name.  Grants for disadvantaged students have been slashed, and funding for worthwhile capital projects have been put on the long finger.  University presidents demand for third-level fees to be re-introduced, adding a further financial burden to already struggling students, while they themselves are pocketing six figure salaries, and in some cases, claiming six figure expenses.  The minimum wage was cut by 13% with the questionable objective of boosting employment, while all it would have done is further hammer the lowest-paid and students.  The moral hypocrisy amongst the elite in our republic absolutely stinks.

  So basically all I'm asking for is a public debate which is not sensationalist and looks to seriously assess who is being hurt most by this economic depression.  Most retirees have their mortgage payed off.  The state pension has doubled in the last ten years.  There is no doubt that elderly people are in danger of being overcome by financial worries, but in my opinion, no more so than any other age-group in the country.  Meanwhile, the retirement age for those under 50 was raised from 65 to 67, with it later rising further to 68 years of age.  While this change is vital because of increasing life expectancy and the state of the public finances, it is another measure which will hammer younger generations.  Indeed, the lack of coverage this measure received was surprising to me considering its importance in the future. 

   But of course, that is just the problem with Irish society at the minute.  We are only concerned about the here-and-now.  Guarantee all the toxic debts of the banks and leave it to the next generation to pay off this debt.  Slash the education budget and forget about the consequences.  It is this kind of short sightedness which has gotten us to this current predicament and an impulse we must shed in order to avoid another depression of this kind.  However I believe that if anyone can discard that viewpoint, this generation of young people can.

The Queen's Visit

            For all the so-called republicans who are protesting against the Queen's visit, forgive me if I am misinterpreting your opposition. Maybe you are against the idea of an unelected head of state and the outdated notion of monarchy.  I'd definitely be sympathetic to this point of view, as a democrat myself.  But that must not be your reason, because I didn't see any protests against Prince Albert of Monaco last month.  Maybe you think that the Queen is responsible for the massacres perpetrated by the British Army during the Troubles ? No again, because it's obvious that the Queen has no say in where British troops are deployed.  Maybe you are against it due to financial reasons – but although the cost is projected to be around 30 million euro, the benefits with regard to tourism and image is estimated at five times that figure.

            So I think I'm getting to the crux of the issue when I say that the tiny minority against the Queen's visit are against it due to things that happened 100 or even 800 years ago.  Due to the Good Friday Agreement, and the subsequent power-sharing agreement in Northern Ireland, I think it's safe to say that that particular area of disagreement has been put to bed.  To say that 'republicans' in the South have a chip on their shoulder against the English is an understatement.  What is clear when you look at history is that the strongest relationships between nations depend on a certain element of forgiving and forgetting. Germany and France exchanged State visits between their countries in 1961 – a mere 16 years after the German occupation of France and the horrors of World War 2.  These countries formed the European Union in order to ensure such horrors never happen again, through a co-operative dialogue and a true sense of solidarity. (As we all know, the European Union has veered clearly from such worthwhile goals, but that's another story)

            What fringe groups like Eirigi and Republican Sinn Fein, and more mainstream radical republicans must realise is that republicanism should convey ideals and goals of a nation, rather than mere anti-Britishness.  In many ways Britain has emulated worthy republican goals like solidarity, equality and liberty, far more than this Republic. It was the first country to establish a welfare state, it is host to great institutions like the BBC, and is home to millions of people of Irish descent, as well as emigrants from the current recession, economically betrayed by the 'Republican Party' in Ireland.  Of course, the British political system also contains an outdated House of Lords and monarchy, but it is not up to us to decide how heads of state who visit Ireland should be elected.  I will be the first to admit that the British have made many horrific and barbarous mistakes in Ireland in the past – from Cromwell to the Famine to the various Bloody Sundays.  As hard as it must be to apologise for something that happened when you weren't even born, that's exactly what Tony Blair (for the Famine), David Cameron (for Bloody Sunday) and the Queen (by laying a wreath in the Garden of Remembrance and visiting Croke Park) have all done.

            What is clear is that this country has never been a republic in its true sense – we escaped from being a dominion of the British Empire, to being a dominion of the Vatican, to worshipping the all-knowing power of the markets during the Celtic Tiger.  Due to the recession, there is a great opportunity to establish a proper Republic which instills a sense of civic responsibility to its citizens, as well as providing everyone with equal opportunities from birth.  I have been impressed by the restraint of Sinn Fein with regard to the visit of the Queen.  Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion (that's the cornerstone of a republic), but they have not inflamed tensions, and they must be congratulated for that.  I have a lot of respect for Sinn Fein, and it is clear that in many ways they are now the de-facto Republican Party in the Dail.  I would hope that they use this position to steer away from the cultural, almost exclusionary. republicanism they have been engaged in the past, towards a more holistic view of republicanism – in an economic sense, as well as a political one.

            We have been in this situation in the past, in the 60's and 90's, where we were in a position to invest in the future of country in a meaningful way. and we squandered such opportunities.  I really think this time it will be different.  Of course, it will require serious action by the Government, including the transfer of a majority of schools to the State, serious investment in education, and a change in the cirriculum.  These measures would help wrest the notion of republicanism away from the anti-English crowd, to a meaning that is true in every sense of the word.  In that way, we may be able to welcome the centenary of the 1916 Rising knowing that the ideals and sacrifice of Connolly and all those other patriots were not in vain.