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.

Musings on the election

I was never one for good timing, and the fact that this general election is happening while I'm on Erasmus says it all really. Even though I'd much rather be at home experiencing the action rather than gazing from the side-lines, it definitely makes for an interesting spectacle catching up on all the news through the Internet (and BBC Radio 4, as its the only English-language radio station I can pick up on my shitty 8 euro LW Radio). However, I'm not foolish enough to wish that this election was being held in September so that I could chip in, as God knows what the Government would do in that time to further fuck up the country.

This is the first election in Ireland to fully utilize the Internet and social media (the fact that I'm giving my opinion on this blog kind of gives that away). Even though I am several hundred miles away, I can still catch up on all that happens on the campaign trail, which is a testament to the digital media revolution. I can read what crazy people think about it all on that hot-bed of grumpy old men on Politics.ie. I can read the so-called 'expert opinion' articles on the Irish Times website (though I take whatever Noel 'Former-Candidate-for-Fianna-Fail' Whelan says with a pinch of salt). I can watch the debates on Primetime or Vinnie Brown using the online players of RTE and TV3. I can guage the reaction to those debates on Facebook (not a big fan of Twitter to be honest). Though online forums in particular can be dragged into hyperbole by keyboard warriors, digital media will undoubtedly lead to a more informed election campaign, as people unsure of each party's policy can just download these documents at the click of a button.

That's enough about the technology – what about the politics of the whole thing? From watching the coverage of the first few days of the election, it seems to me that each party are pitching radically different messages to the electorate. Fianna Fail are basically saying that the others will be worse than them (Lenihan in particular has comically tried to deny that he said just one year ago that this country had «turned the corner») and their only policy so far is the IMF-manufactured 4-Year Plan – so much for the 'Republican Party'. They are hoping that the mere presence of Micheal Martin will convince the public that they have turned over a new leaf, with nothing to back this up. Their whole strategy has been to criticize every other party, but offer nothing of their own.

It's fairly obvious that Fine Gael are trying to play to their strengths – bring out the perceived heavy hitters like Micheal Noonan and Leo Varadkar, hide Enda as much as possible for the duration of the campaign, and highlight their shiny policies (which contain more of the neo-liberal economic illiteracy that has gotten us into this mess in the first place, like privatisating the ESB). The fact that their support has gone up while Enda was nowhere to be found seems to bear this hypothesis out. Their unique selling point (probably the only thing I remember from my marketing module) is the fact that they are realistically the only party that could achieve an overall majority, though it is extremely unlikely.

Of course I'm biased, but from a policy and ideas point of view, Labour have started most impressively in my view. In the past few days they have been releasing a policy paper every day – some are obvious ones, like the economic plan released last week. However, others are less obvious, but important in their own right, such as the broadband plan released last week which aims to roll out Next Generation Broadband in order to attract investment, as well as the Green Jobs paper (presumably trying to tempt the majority of Green voters from last time that feel they have been sold out by the Greens in government). That's without mentioning important upcoming policy papers, like the Education policy and a revamped Health policy. There has also been important updates in other regards, such as the iPhone and Android app (the only party to have one) and a much better looking website (the old one was a nightmare).

And despite all this, Labour haven't amazed in the first week – mainly due to personnel problems. I don't put too much weight on polls, but there is definitely a trend of losing votes to Fine Gael, and a revival for Fianna Fail can't be ruled out. The main reason for this stagnation in my view has been the sub par performances of some Labour reps such as Roisin Shortall, and more infamously, Joan Burton on Vincent Browne. Of course, there have been many more impressive media performances that outnumber the bad ones, but the media never pick up on this (UCC alumni Alan Kelly in particular has been impressive and he could yet follow in the footsteps of Dr Noel Browne by getting a Ministry in his first day in the Dáil). There has also been stupid faux pas which should just not happen on the election campaign (Pat Rabbite comment about the Fianna Fail lassies springs to mind). I still think the Labour Party is capable of getting up to 50 seats in this election, but more work needs to be put into the message that we want to get across, and in that regard the debates (no matter what format they end up to be) may very well be crucial.

Looking at the rest of the parties – the section that Micheal McDowell disparagely called the left-overs – it is obvious that Sinn Féin are going to do well, and may triple their seats on current levels of support. They are playing the role of angry outsider well, and Pearse Doherty's appointment as Finance spokesperson before the Budget was an inspired move. Doherty is eloquently venting the ordinary person's anger at the Government as well as highlighting the perceived closeness of the three main parties. Despite his high opinion ratings, I think Gerry Adams is the Achilles Heel for Sinn Fein in the South – not through his colourful history in the IRA (noone cares anymore), but through his lack of understanding of economics, in the South in particular. His media appearances have been far from assured, and they will try to wheel out Doherty as much as possible. Nevertheless I expect Adams to win a seat in Louth. Overall, I'd like to see Sinn Féin do well, as I'd definitely be more of a fan of their economics policy than the Blueshirts. The previously ridiculed prospect of Sinn Fein being in Government by 2016 is a very likely one, in my view.

The Greens should face facts - they are going to be wiped out, in the Dáil at least. It's going to be a question of getting rid of John Gormley, admit they made a mistake in going into Government with Fianna Fail, and seek to re-establish itself as a viable party of the Left, rather than Fianna Fail's whipping boys. Overall I do think they had a handful of successes in Government (Civil Partnership being the most important one) and Eamon Ryan seemed to be a decent minister who thought outside the box, but the price to pay was too much for them.

Concerning the United Left Alliance, I don't think it's outside the realms of possibility that they will win 6 or 7 seats, but the most realistic is around 3. The measure of their success will be determined by how 'united' they actually appear, as the micro-Left are notorious for their in-fighting. Sometimes I think their vehemence towards some parties, Labour in particular, stems from personal anguish rather than overt political differences (Joe Higgins still hasn't gotten over being kicked out of the Labour Party).

That's my view from the start of the campaign anyway, I'm sure it's going to change regularly between now and February 25^th. My foremost hope for the election is that a Left-Right divide actually takes place in Ireland – better (90 years) late than never.

Back in Paris

I've been back in France for a month, but in my mind it seems like a lot longer. When I had my head buried in books last April and May, I would never have thought that 3 weeks back in Cork would constitute a holiday! However, it's hard to put a measure on the importance of the small pleasures in life, and previously forgotten treasures like fry ups and a roast dinner made my stay in Cork all the more enjoyable. It may sound clichéd, and even soppy, but the thing I had definitely missed the most over the previous four months in France were seeing my friends and family (especially the dogs!) There was a lot of catching up to do and unheard gossip to digest – sometimes online chat just doesn't do some things justice.

Just before I headed back to Cork for the Christmas break, a few friends came over to visit and experience the sights of the City of Lights. It was a great distraction from the exams I had a few days earlier - which amazingly I passed, despite losing most of my notes - and it was refreshing to do some of the touristy stuff, which I was not able to do beforehand because of college (the most striking thing about my stay in Paris so far is how different the experience is actually living here, rather then just spending a few days on a break – there's not many strolls by the Seine, instead there's studying books in the bibliotheque). Anyway, my apartment consists of one bedroom which is just under 10 m2, so it was quite a tight squeeze for the four of us! During those five days the obligatory visit to Disneyland was undertaken. The whole park was caked in a layer of snow and it brought out the child in all of us (this included barraging the unsuspecting people on the Thunder Mountain rollercoaster with a volloy of snowballs – they did not appreciate this). We also visited the breath-taking château in Versailles, and a snowball fight and making snow angels in the gardens of Versailles was really an unforgettable experience.

I didn't want to raise the issue of politics in this diary again, because with the general election campaign firmly under way, I'm sure all of you are sick of it (bar the political hacks, in which I include myself). However, I have to bring up a subject that particularly affects me personally – the issue of being able to vote from abroad, which is currently not available to any Irish citizens, besides Defense Forces and diplomats. In so-called developed countries, the right to vote is one of the most basic and fundamental of rights and it is robbed from every Irish citizen who cannot be present at their polling station on the day of the election, no matter how legitimate their reason is. It is fairly evident that this country makes it a lot more difficult than most to excercise the right to vote (having to register before a certain date instead of it being automatic, normally holding elections on days which ensures that the majority of students can't vote) but it is this practise which I find the most inexcusable.

Why should I be robbed of my vote when I am expanding my horizons and furthering my education abroad? Why should I be deprived of my voice when I am fulfilling a necessary requirement of completing my degree? When this Government's actions have hammered students, and young people in general, out of total proportion to any other group in society - why am I not able to do my patriotic duty in throwing out of power the worst government in the history of this State?

This is not even mentioning the plight of the growing number of mainly young people emigrating to other countries due to the economic negligence of those in the Dáil (projected to be 100,000 in the next two years). It is twistingly ironic that the very people who have been failed most by this State cannot excercise their right to exact their revenge. Perhaps it is a part of Fianna Fáil's electoral strategy that these voices will be silent in the most important election of our generation. The most depressing reality is that the 'grey' vote of that party, cynically the only group not affected by the savage cuts of Budget 2011, and many with an inbred ignorance of anything other than Civil War politics, will ensure that Fianna Fáil live on after the election - and that the young people of Ireland will continue to suffer.

Guide to being a Parisian

Having lived in Paris for 5 months now, you really get a feel for the place – and its people. Of course, even if you have lived here for 5 or 15 years you can never claim to a true Parisian – excuse the cliché, but that requires a certain je ne sais quoi. Therefore, I've decided to make a list of things which it seems is obligatory for all Parisian femmes et hommes.

• When in public, don't even dare to smile – particularly on public transport, the severity of your pout determines how Parisian you are. Visual disdain when English is uttered gives you extra points.

• Huge «nerd» glasses are so chic right now – you have to wear them. Don't worry about the little fact that you have 20-20 vision, that's what clear glasses are for. In Paris it's cool to be not cool.

• Whether you're paying for a new Gucci dress on the Champs l'Elysee or a bottle of milk for 80c, it is standard that you pay with a card. Notes and coins are used by savages.

• It is a little known fact that in Paris there exists an actual fashion police. Showing up for college in hoodies and fat man pants warrants 2 years of being shunned and ostracised. Wear Penneys gear at your own peril.

• If you work in a bank or the civil service you must make sure that everything is as complicated as possible – bien sûr it's a sure-fire way of keeping your job (I found this out to my detriment when trying to set up a direct debit with my landlord for the rent – never again!)

• Don't want to go into work on Monday morning after a weekend of too much vintage wine and fine cheese ? No problem – just call a strike !

• Say 'en fait'. A lot.

• Upon hearing a person is from Ireland, ensure that you make a joke in bad English about France giving us a bailout so that us Paddys can continue to booze like there's no tomorrow. (When you try to explain that the money is actually going to French and German banks, and not to the Irish public, you will be met with a bemused silence)

• You have no problem paying €10 for a single vodka in a club, or €7 in a pub for a pint of beer.

• Guys must dress as camp as possible – all gaydars in Paris are rendered obselete.

• Trafic lights are merely advisory – follow them and you're not guaranteed to get to the other side in one piece (Seriously, sometimes both the pedestrian and car lights are green at the same time – does not compute)

• Can't understand a question from a stranger, or you just don't like the look of them? Just say you're a tourist! (This tactic has saved me from a few pickles in my time here)

• If you're a Parisian guy in a bar and you start chatting to the opposite sex for more than one minute, then you have a reasonable expectation that you'll be getting lucky tonight. On this not happening, you will be outraged.

• When ordering at a bar, you think that waving your hands frantically and/or verbally abusing the bar staff will get you served more promptly (at least in my experience working in a bar over here)

• Wear black – all the time.
  
  
• Upon realising that the person you are talking to isn't fluent in French, reply in worse English

• You continue to follow Paris St Germain in football in the vain hope that they will finally win something. (Sure what choice do you have – they are the only football team in Paris!)

• The French custom of kissing your friends twice on the cheek (bisoux) can be sometimes fatal to a budding friendship if you aim for the wrong cheek, accidentally nearly taking part in the other very French custom – the French kiss.

• When someone drags up the topic of Thierry Henry's handball, you will state loudly your disgust at the incident and the unfairness of it all. (Of course, in private you believe it's what the boring Irish connards deserved)

The IMF are here

It's only a week since I wrote my previous blog post, and depressingly it seems like its already far out-dated. In that post I wrote how the Government had denyed everything that has happened thus far in the recession – however, even in my most cynical of minds I never thought that they would try and deny that an EU/IMF bail-out was taking place when it actually was. But no, that realisation was confirmed on the radio yesterday morning by the Governer of the Central Bank Patrick Honohan – that's right, not our elected leaders, but an unelected (if decent) civil servant.

The most depressing thing about this bail-out for me is that I've had to try and piece together what's happening from a different country, with the Internet as my only tool. I saw on the BBC website that Ireland was negotiating a bail-out, while at the same time RTE were denying the story. It appears that this citizen living hundreds of miles from Dublin is perhaps even better informed than a person actually living in the country ! But I can't get away from this story – it is in the front pages of French papers as well. I even had a French friend today mocking me about it, saying that they'll be the ones bailing us out. I couldn't even argue with her. It's interesting to note that it's almost exactly a year since the Thierry Henry hand-ball incident – how our priorities have changed since then.

When I left Ireland at the start of September for my year abroad on Erasmus I never thought in my worst nightmares that we would end up at this stage. Sure things were bad, but I still remembered the heady days of the Celtic Tiger and thought that there was no way would we end up like Greece or Iceland. Previously, I thought that the IMF was a hypothetical tool that was used by neo-liberal puppets to call for more cuts to social welfare, health, education etc. Now they are here, occupying the Central bank for negotiations. It's only since I've come and lived in a foreign country that I've seriously thought about the future and the possibility of emigration. It's now looking like emigration is a probability.

Look, I fully expect people to fuck up – its a natural human trait to make mistakes. Sure my party Labour have made a bundle, from entering government with Fianna Fail in 1992, to the Mullingar Accord in 2007, and promising to cut taxes in that election. However, what I cannot stand from this government is that they make mistake after mistake after mistake and deny all responsability. Even worse, they deny that they have made any mistake in the first place! The lies, spin, deceit and downright treachery displayed from this Government in the last few weeks has surprised me, when I thought I couldn't be surprised by anything FF did anymore. In this crisis we have heard FF lay blame on everyone but themselves - Lehman brothers, independent economists like McWilliams and Morgan Kelly, the media. It appears that the public aren't buying it anymore – I think we saw the start of this on Primetime last night with Pat Rabbite's passionate tirade against Pat Carey, and Fianna Fail in general. Everyone on Twitter, Facebook and forums seemed to agree that Rabitte spoke for every citizen of this country last night – the anger was palpable. It seems like we are mad as hell and not going to take it any more. I'll gladly bring the French fighting spirit when the protests properly start.

Divide and Conquer - the Shock Doctrine in Ireland

As you can imagine, living in a tiny apartment in a foreign country with no access to a television, internet or even a radio can lead to intense boredom. It was during one of these bouts of boredom that I decided to go for a stroll through Paris, not really aware of where I would end up. I found myself next to the Notre Dame and remembered that there is a famous English language book-shop right across the river – Shakespeare & Company. It is a favoured haunt for novelists throughout the world, who head there with the promise of free accommodation and meals, in return for their artistic output. Being somewhat of an idealist, I appreciated the efforts of this romantic purveyor of charity and fully intended on supporting this establishment by buying a book.

It turned out better than expected – there was a book reading from a renowned travel writer, as well as some wine-tasting after. How so very French! Determined to keep my promise, I bought a book that had been previously recommended to me by a friend – The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, the author of a previous bestsellet No Logo. I'm sure a lot of you have read The Shock Doctrine, and will have your own opinions on the book (no doubt depending on what political spectrum you hail from) but what I would like to outline is its relevance in Ireland today, and the adherence by some sections of the Irish media and political establishment to implement 'shock therapy' to our beleaugured economy.

I will start with some criticism of Klein and her book – her comparison of actual physical torture to the sort of economic 'shock therapy' of Milton Friedman and his extreme free-market disciples is extremely tenuous and brings down the tone of the book to the point that extreme free market supporters are painted as a kind of bogey men. It is outlined later in the book that economic 'shock therapy' can indeed engendar and rely upon violence, as shown by the hideous regime of Pinochet in Chile, so the linking of torture to this economic ideal is not needed, in my opinion. However, Klein's outlining of how a rapid crash course in deregulation, privatisation and savage cuts in public spending can destroy a society has extraordinary resonance with the current decimated state of the Irish economy.

Klein recounts the stories of many countries – particularly in South America – during the 60's and 70's, that were savaged by economic crises such as high unemployment or hyperinflation, many caused by external sources such as interest rate hikes and trade embargoes. This allowed a certain type of dictator to take advantage of these crises and launch successful coup d'etats (supported and abetted by the CIA, determined to rid Latin America of 'Socialism'). These dictators were inspired by the extreme free-market views of the Chicago School of Economics and particularly Milton Friedman's ideas – indeed Friedman acted as an advisor to Pinochet in Chile. Friedman viewed these countries as a kind of experimental lab, where he could test his theories and mathematical models – the resulting breath-taking hike in inequality and decline in standard of living of most workers would imply that this 'shock tactic' theory should have stayed just that – a theory. However, in the 80's various events occurred which proved that the 'shock theory' may take hold in Western democracies, given enough of a crisis – as occurred in Britain after the Falklands war and Thatcher's privatisation spree, and later in the US after 9/11 with Bush's privatisation of the military and even social security.

But war is not the only kind of crisis which can provoke serious national instability – economic crises are just as serious. Whereas after the Great Depression, there was a worldwide consensus that redistributive policies like the New Deal would be the solution, in the last three decades we have seen a swing in the other direction. When Poland finally won independance from the shackles of Moscow, it sold off most of its State assets for lucrative deals with the elites, while the Government cut the wages of the standard worker. Organisations such as the IMF have forced countries to not renague on the free market policies which got them into the crisis in the first place, but to instead plunge further into that model – privatise more, deregulate more, and purgethe public service to its very bones. In Friedman's own words – ''Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that we take depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.''

This finally leads me to Ireland's current situation – it seems that we are fucked. As crude as that statement is, it is nowhere near as crude as the Government's handling of the Depression in our country. In 2008, all that time ago, Fianna Fail indeed denied that we were in recession – maybe they knew that because they have been in power for so long that they have noone else to blame (of course after the Wall Street crash we were told it was all Lehman Brothers' fault). Then we were told that there would be a soft-landing. Then we were told that there would have to be a minor adjustment, and were sold the magical solution of the banking guarantee (in fact Sinn Fein, for all their posturing these days comparing Labour to FF and FG, voted in favour of this act of economic stupidity - dare I say treason)

Nearly 15,000,000,000 euro has now been cut from the economy in the last 4 budgets – a huge figure (I won't remind you of Lenihans claim last Christmas that we had 'turned the corner'). Even more savage cuts have become apparantly, in the words of Friedman, 'politically inevitable'. And what has this slashing of public expenditure actually achieved? Absolutely nothing – in fact, it has further deflated our economy. Unemployment has inevitably sky-rocketed from a lack of investment, emigration has surged (unemployment would be half a million people without it) and our bond yields are increasing hour by hour. This is despite last weeks clarification that the adjustment this year will be 6,000,000,000 with the vast majority of that in cuts. As the cliché says, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different outcome.

Why are our bond yields increasing at such a rate (over 8 points this week, within spitting distance of junk status) ? It is because investors know that a country needs to have a capacity to actually grow and pay back its debt – cutting everything just doesn't work. Obama has been lambasted for investing in a stimulus package in the US, but this has reduced unemployment significantly, as has been the case for other countries in Europe. Why is our Government so afraid of seeing the obvious benefits of stimulus packages and the multiplier affect? I believe it is due to the belief of many individuals in the media, Government, the Department of Finance and Brussels in the 'shock theory' school of economics. They ignore the real causes of this crisis – massive deregulation under Charlie McCreevy, poor governance, low taxes and huge dependance on construction, etc and instead, favour exactly the same medecine. How do we lower the defecit ? Why of course, we have to privatise all productive State companies (recently outlined by Fine Gael in their policy document), we should keep taxes at their unrealistically low level, and we should lay off a sizable portion of the public service.

But why would people like Sir Anthony O' Reilly, Micheal O' Leary or Dennis O' Brien want a more fair distribution of the pain in the Budget? As billionaires with an extensive influence in the media, they are able to manipulate opinion towards this 'shock doctrine' – keep the people divided, keep the private sector pitted against the public sector, students versus the middle class, pensioners versus the rest of society – it is a divide and conquer strategy. In my opinion it is more like a scorched earth policy. And while the vast majority of the media, and indeed society, ignore the real perpetrators of this crisis, these same people are able to espouse their shock and awe tactics to the public that had no hand in the making of it. Make no mistake, the likes of O' Reilly are rubbing their hands in glee at this 'opportunity' to implement their individualistic idealogy on this whole country. We get multi-millionaires like Peter Sutherland (Chairman of the secretive Bilderberg Group and head of RBS when it had to be bailed out by the British Government) saying that the dole should be hit significantly, and Mike Soden (disgraced ex-CEO of Bank of Ireland who was sacked for looking up porn in his office) saying that college fees should be re-introduced. It is time that every Irish person stands up and realise the true intentions of these people, and groups like the IMF. They have a lot of impressive mathematical equations but most of them come down to this:

Divided people = Increased Profit