Is/was the country ever capable of managing itself?

Going Forward

This is a genuine question.

We know the recent historic events and some of us have lived through a few recessions.
Apart from the "tiger" years when we thought we were flying, things had always been a bit dicey, with a relatively basic standard of living, stodgy economy, etc.

We now have an ageing population with a pension deficit, high unemployment, not much credit, another 3bn of cuts in the next budget, and austerity for the foreseeable future.

Is there any reason to be optimistic looking at this and the country's past performances?
Are we simply an over populated (even with emigration) little island which never had a hope of sustaining a functioning economy?

Cody Pomeray

I think there are genuine questions to be raised over the wisdom of Ireland's 70 year (1922 - 1992) flirtation with complete sovereign independence.

Thankfully, that horrific rollercoaster is grinding, groaning, winding to a stop.

Sad to say the Brits had a point after all. There are lots of components of Irish political inefficiency but essentially I believe we are too small to govern ourselves.

jimmycrackcorm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I think there are genuine questions to be raised over the wisdom of Ireland's 70 year (1922 - 1992) flirtation with complete sovereign independence.

Thankfully, that horrific rollercoaster is grinding, groaning, winding to a stop.

Sad to say the Brits had a point after all. There are lots of components of Irish political inefficiency but essentially I believe we are too small to govern ourselves.

Does you mean the same brits who had to resort to bringing in the IMF in the seventies?

_Kaiser_

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I think there are genuine questions to be raised over the wisdom of Ireland's 70 year (1922 - 1992) flirtation with complete sovereign independence.

Thankfully, that horrific rollercoaster is grinding, groaning, winding to a stop.

Sad to say the Brits had a point after all. There are lots of components of Irish political inefficiency but essentially I believe we are too small to govern ourselves.

I've said the same here lots of times.

Replace "small" with..

- Corrupt
- Parochial
- Lazy
- Apathetic
- Greedy

or similar though and you're on the mark. In a nation where we insist on electing national representatives (those who bother to vote at all) based on nothing more than...

- they fixed the road
- they got my planning application/grant/similar through
- Mammy and Daddy always voted for them
- I'd never vote for SF/anything different

.. it's no wonder that we end up with a political system where the two main parties are just 2 sides of the same coin, and filled with teachers/publicans/lawyers/career or dynastic politicians that couldn't manage a piss-up in a brewery most of the time, never mind the affairs of a country.

As for our "independence" - sure we gave that away to the Church as soon as we got it, and when the attitudes finally started to change (despite the best efforts of that institution to hold us back), we sold it off to the EEC/EU just as quickly.

We've only had our "freedom" for less than 100 years and we've totally managed to ruin the place. The best thing that could happen would be that Enda goes cap in hand to the UK and asks them if they wouldn't mind stepping in again as we shouldn't have been let at the controls - and seeing as the average Irish voter is more concerned with the goings on on Eastenders, Man United or the price of stuff in Tesco, not much would really change.

The Irish are just too immature as a nation to be let run things themselves.

ardmacha

This thread indicates exactly what the problem is. Vague generalities, selective use of information and an inability to identify the issues and what bit is good and which is a problem. The most depressing thing is that those who lament most about the situation invariably act in the same way as those they are complaining about.

NIMAN

We are talking about a country that never had wealth and then blew it all when we got some. Our attitude to money was the same as our attitude to alcohol, lets get hammered!

Plus, we are also talking about a country where there is a chance that we might re-elect the same party that destroyed an entire nation so dramatically, after just one term of being out of office.

We can be stupid and maybe better if someone else watched over us.

belcampprisoner

education jobs for all those leaving for other countries,

carpejugulum

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I think there are genuine questions to be raised over the wisdom of Ireland's 70 year (1922 - 1992) flirtation with complete sovereign independence.

Thankfully, that horrific rollercoaster is grinding, groaning, winding to a stop.

Sad to say the Brits had a point after all. There are lots of components of Irish political inefficiency but essentially I believe we are too small to govern ourselves.

All the best-governed countries are small.

Cody Pomeray

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Does you mean the same brits who had to resort to bringing in the IMF in the seventies?

Yes. Not sure what that could possibly have to do with a country being incapable of reasonable management of its own affairs over a sustained period.

i.e., to clarify, I'm talking about a sustained, prolonged inadequacies in governance, not exceptional events.

In that sense, I'm not even including the property bubble in itself, but as part of a wider pattern in Irish independence.

carpejugulum wrote: »

All the best-governed countries are small.

That's just blatantly not true.

There are some countries with small populations who are well governed - however they are usually part of wider unions (Luxembourg), enjoy substantial resources of their own (Norway), or have a very different profile of expectations that would be at odds with Irish society (any number of examples...).

serfboard

NIMAN wrote: »

Plus, we are also talking about a country where there is a chance that we might re-elect the same party that destroyed an entire nation so dramatically, after just one term of being out of office.

You're talking about Iceland ... they've just done exactly this.

It's true what was said before ... difference between us is one letter and a period of months/years.

hfallada

Are Irish people aware that a majority of countries are in severe recession and that the irish recession is actually a world recession. The Americans even call it the great recession. France has an unemployment rate of about 11% (25% for youths and a third of youths that are employed, are employed by the state). Most countries have bailed out their banks and some will continue to bail they out in the future.

With the majority of the world in recession Ireland was going to enter recession. Although if wage increases and social welfare hadnt been increased so much ( with the massive budget surpluses and fact that national debt was only 25% of GDP the government had to do something with the money). Although the government should have abolished all the policies that encouraged home ownership as it fueled the bubble. But places like Nevada and Florida people are in far worse negative equity than here.

The Irish people is the youngest in Europe and among the most educated so the economy will rebound. But I feel the older generation should put up the tax increase and budget cuts. They benefited from the booming economy but want to pass the mistake to the younger with a mountain of national debt.

Cody Pomeray

hfallada wrote: »

Are Irish people aware that a majority of countries are in severe recession and that the irish recession is actually a world recession.

Eh... yes.

Are you aware that the Irish downturn got proportionately more serious than the EU average using key indicators - government deficits, debt:GDP ratios, GDP, and unemployment.

Why did Ireland respond differently to the world crisis than, say, Germany, whose unemployment rate is the lowest since reunification.

In establishing the causes for that, you have to consider what policies might have been behind it.

But places like Nevada and Florida people are in far worse negative equity than here.

I'm not sure what the relevance of this is supposed to be.

The fact of mortgage crises perhaps being worse in other jurisdictions is of little comfort to Irish home-owners.

Seriously, how many men do you think will have read your statement on Nevada, rushed to kiss their wives and proclaim "Honey, our mortgage worries are behind us; things are worse in Nevada!"

On the issue of governance, at least Nevada has the comfort of the federal Government's monetary toolkit as well as political, economic and monetary union.

Sand

The difference between Ireland and better governed countries is not Irish people. It is the constitution of the government. Irish government is extremely weak, with few checks or balances, practically zero transparency in policy making, actual zero accountability in public service, high capture of institutions by vested interests, and a systematic dissonance between local elections and national government. Its an odd situation where the government of the day is so obsessed with pleasing various special interest groups appointed as intermediaries with supposed citizen concerns, yet the average citizen is entirely alienated from their government.

Essentially Irish government is entirely at the mercy of the individuals within it, because absolutely no one gave any thought to limiting its power bar traditional deference to the Catholic Church in social matters. You'll see this repeatedly, even on this forum - the traditional rebuke to anyone who questions the government line is to demand that they justify their refusal to support the governments policy. The government is never asked to support their own policy. That's not an exaggeration - a single man, Pat Swords, is involved in a titanic legal battle with the Department of Energy (who are spending your tax euros in their defense). Mr Swords query is simple - he is asking the DoE to justify their policy of wind power subsidies. A huge long court case has resulted because the DoE refuses to provide any evidence to support the policy chosen. That's not part of an evil DoE plot. That's just how Irish policy is made. The DoE is probably honestly outraged that anyone has asked them to explain *why* they picked a particular policy.

This is not a traditional Irish malaise. It is not something we have to accept as inevitable. It is a system of governance that was chosen, and we can choose better systems. Defeatism in this respect only serves the entrenched vested interests. If Ireland were to be governed under a better system, we would achieve vastly better results. The Irish people are well capable of governing themselves - some basic reforms would prove the point.

Silentcorner

Sand wrote: »

The difference between Ireland and better governed countries is not Irish people. It is the constitution of the government. Irish government is extremely weak, with few checks or balances, practically zero transparency in policy making, actual zero accountability in public service, high capture of institutions by vested interests, and a systematic dissonance between local elections and national government. Its an odd situation where the government of the day is so obsessed with pleasing various special interest groups appointed as intermediaries with supposed citizen concerns, yet the average citizen is entirely alienated from their government.

Essentially Irish government is entirely at the mercy of the individuals within it, because absolutely no one gave any thought to limiting its power bar traditional deference to the Catholic Church in social matters.

This is not a traditional Irish malaise. It is not something we have to accept as inevitable. It is a system of governance that was chosen, and we can choose better systems. Defeatism in this respect only serves the entrenched vested interests. If Ireland were to be governed under a better system, we would achieve vastly better results. The Irish people are well capable of governing themselves - some basic reforms would prove the point.

Excellent post, thoroughly agree.

As long as the citizen has faith that we can change we have hope, never before have people questioned authority like we have over the last number of years, we need to keep questioning it...the troika (Fg/Lab/FF) need to live in fear of that shift...we can do to Fg/Lag what we did to FF.

Private companies reinvigorate themselves all the time...sporting clubs can do it, religions do it...this republic can do it....

Couldn't agree more...defeat is what the troika(and all other entrenched vested interests) want..

The sad thing is that needless to say i just couldnt say 'Yes we can' in this situation but those who think that the Brits would do better are talking sh*t in my honest opinion. They had no interest whatsoever in prosperity for the normal Irish man or woman. We experienced a potato famine during their regime where half our population were decimated by either death or emigration ffs.

I'm glad we are building bridges in modern times with the Brits tbh and they aren't a bad lot in fairness but we didn't leave a utopia behind by any means and the lower working class Brits who had to suffer the likes of Thatcher's regime would concur.

If i could use an analogy it is almost as if we left a rough and neglectful foster home to go back to alcoholic, abusive parents.

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

We are talking about a country that never had wealth and then blew it all when we got some. Our attitude to money was the same as our attitude to alcohol, lets get hammered!

Plus, we are also talking about a country where there is a chance that we might re-elect the same party that destroyed an entire nation so dramatically, after just one term of being out of office.

We can be stupid and maybe better if someone else watched over us.

I agree with your post but there is the thing, surely we could have been watched at EU level if we were given EU funding and loans? If the Germans are so efficient with money then why did they let the situation get to this? I'm not trying to absolve us of any responsibility but money was given out like that Carlsberg ad from a few years back and it wasnt all generated within.

We behaved like the w@nkers we are but where money is lent it should be well marshalled from the very top and those who lent should have done so with more scrutiny

Sand

Deleted User wrote: »

If the Germans are so efficient with money then why did they let the situation get to this? I'm not trying to absolve us of any responsibility but money was given out like that Carlsberg ad from a few years back and it wasnt all generated within.

We behaved like the w@nkers we are but where money is lent it should be well marshalled from the very top and those who lent should have done so with more scrutiny

Yep, for all the racial stereotypes of Germans being frugal and prudent with their money, one of the main causes of the collapse of the sub prime mortgage collapse was that US banks eventually ran out of dumb German banks to sell their risky subprime mortgages to. US banks might have been heaving and grunting over the toilet, but German banks were queuing up with spoons right to the death. Depfa Bank is an example closer to home - Germany has already bailed out Ireland via their banks buying up that money pit right before the crash. The instability in the periphery and the flight of capital to the core has helped Germany by post-phoning the day when someone has to look at the bank balance sheets - its not surprising that Germany is one of the primary objectors to a European regulator governing over their "pillar banks". A non-German might be less indulgent of the various local state banks and their political connections.

Racial stereotypes about the ungovernable Irish and the efficient Germans are just that - stereotypes.

Sand

Sand wrote: »

Yep, for all the racial stereotypes of Germans being frugal and prudent with their money, one of the main causes of the collapse of the sub prime mortgage collapse was that US banks eventually ran out of dumb German banks to sell their risky subprime mortgages to. US banks might have been heaving and grunting over the toilet, but German banks were queuing up with spoons right to the death. Depfa Bank is an example closer to home - Germany has already bailed out Ireland via their banks buying up that money pit right before the crash.

Racial stereotypes about the ungovernable Irish and the efficient Germans are just that - stereotypes.

Fair play to you Sand your dead right. Just thinking there my friend was talking to me about some guy he used work with on the buildings some years back who had a gambling problem. He was asked by the guy in question to lend him a score one day so unknowing of his problem, he obliged and when he told his fellow workmates they warned him not to do it again as he was a fierce man for the horses and that half the site had lent him money without seeing 1c back. So there you have these ordinary Joe's who learned once from their mistake and yet these bureaucrats, the ever so 'efficient' Germans in Frankfurt, continued to lend the reckless gamblers over here money without asking any questions. These people who were top of their field in the area of finance and yet they made this huge balls up and took none of the blame.

If I lend Tommy money on Monday and he promises to pay me back Friday yet doesnt then im going to be very reluctant to give Tommy 1c ever again and yet these so called experts hadnt the cop on to do the same

carpejugulum

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That's just blatantly not true.

There are some countries with small populations who are well governed - however they are usually part of wider unions (Luxembourg), enjoy substantial resources of their own (Norway), or have a very different profile of expectations that would be at odds with Irish society (any number of examples...).

Expectations are changing. Just look at Ireland 30, 50, 70 years ago.

RichardAnd

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I've said the same here lots of times.

Replace "small" with..

- Corrupt
- Parochial
- Lazy
- Apathetic
- Greedy

or similar though and you're on the mark. In a nation where we insist on electing national representatives (those who bother to vote at all) based on nothing more than...

- they fixed the road
- they got my planning application/grant/similar through
- Mammy and Daddy always voted for them
- I'd never vote for SF/anything different

.. it's no wonder that we end up with a political system where the two main parties are just 2 sides of the same coin, and filled with teachers/publicans/lawyers/career or dynastic politicians that couldn't manage a piss-up in a brewery most of the time, never mind the affairs of a country.

As for our "independence" - sure we gave that away to the Church as soon as we got it, and when the attitudes finally started to change (despite the best efforts of that institution to hold us back), we sold it off to the EEC/EU just as quickly.

We've only had our "freedom" for less than 100 years and we've totally managed to ruin the place. The best thing that could happen would be that Enda goes cap in hand to the UK and asks them if they wouldn't mind stepping in again as we shouldn't have been let at the controls - and seeing as the average Irish voter is more concerned with the goings on on Eastenders, Man United or the price of stuff in Tesco, not much would really change.

The Irish are just too immature as a nation to be let run things themselves.

I want to add a few things here...

First of all, there is no "we" in any of this. Ireland is a country filled with individuals who, for the sake of clarity, can be refereed to as "the Irish People". I was born here, but I've never considered myself Irish beyond the point that I am a citizen of the Irish state, something I see as a purely bureaucratic thing. Whilst what you're saying is not without truth, it's wrong to ascribe it to a "we" because there many people of merit here. Don't blame everyone for the stupidity of subset.

Secondly, what you've described is not at all unique to Ireland. Though the inhabitants of this Island have a curious penchant for putting themselves down, they should consider that humans are humans. Certainly, the environment of their upbringing will affect their attitudes as adults but there is no reason why a person born in Ireland will be any more or less incompetent than someone from Germany, France or elsewhere. Don't be selfish, there's plenty of stupidly to go around!

RichardAnd

RichardAnd wrote: »

I want to add a few things here...

First of all, there is no "we" in any of this. Ireland is a country filled with individuals who, for the sake of clarity, can be refereed to as "the Irish People". I was born here, but I've never considered myself Irish beyond the point that I am a citizen of the Irish state, something I see as a purely bureaucratic thing. Whilst what you're saying is not without truth, it's wrong to ascribe it to a "we" because there many people of merit here. Don't blame everyone for the stupidity of subset.

Secondly, what you've described is not at all unique to Ireland. Though the inhabitants of this Island have a curious penchant for putting themselves down, they should consider that humans are humans. Certainly, the environment of their upbringing will affect their attitudes as adults but there is no reason why a person born in Ireland will be any more or less incompetent than someone from Germany, France or elsewhere. Don't be selfish, there's plenty of stupidly to go around!

I tend to see what your getting at. Most Western cultures aren't collective. That said 'we' in terms of the electorate and as people who happen to be from a nation state, need to really change our attitude toward giving our trust to others. We also need to learn to stand together against the forces of corruption, in the interest of justice for everyone and against the many issues that face the ordinary Irish citizen every day.

maninasia

I agree with Sand that governmental institutions should take a big part of the blame. They are all divided into fiefdoms and they are all obsessed about protecting their own patch of turf. Even the unions have older members willing to sell out younger members.

The electorate had a lot of the blame too though.

I'll be harsh here but I think Irish people are not knowledgeable enough about financial matters and other ways or running a state and society. Religion occupies the space civil and financial education should take in schools. The state is still sponsoring religious activities. The religious types still interfere in divorce and abortion.

Irish society is more like some Asian countries and consensus driven at heart, very different than the US for example. Time after time the consensus is to elect a center left (they are sometimes called center right but all of them are center left to be honest) government and there is almost no difference in their policies. Even after a major fiscal disaster there is no appetite for a fiscal conservative party.

They espouse socialism but mainly for themselves.

They are willing to borrow 10 billion a year just to avoid radical change and get a few more quid in their bank accounts, for the moment.

They are willing to be bailed out and dictated to by foreign countries with hardly a murmur of protest.

Nobody goes to jail but the country is in a half bankrupt state.

Here have been tribunal after tribunal and meanwhile nothing improved and almost no actions were taken.

These are not the signs of a serious country. We don't even have a proper army to defend ourselves if attacked. We would have to rely on other nations.

Finally the attitude to alcohol is shocking. The Irish have an alcohol problem. It's not healthy for the mind or body.

Ireland and the Irish, a nice country and people but not serious about running their own country.

Cody Pomeray

You're confusing administrative ineptitude with incapacity.

Unless you believe that the Irish are a genetically inferior species, then ineptitude can be overcome.
Some of your points - this issue about alcohol and the army 'in case of attack' - are just irrelevant altogether.

What I believe exists is something far more serious - a structural incapacity to govern. This, I believe, is based on the size of the country, its lack of resources, and the open nature of the economy.

It has nothing to do with the Irish 'character' or any other silly generalisation.

hmmm

There's an arrogance running through Irish society that feeds into our economic planning and I think has been our downfall once or twice. We've bankrupted the country in recent years, but you'll still see prominent Irish economic commentators sneering at the actions of other countries (like the Germans) and criticising the way these other countries are run.

There's a refusal to face up to the mess we created for ourselves - if I was Fintan O'Toole I'd probably write a column saying that we blame everyone else for our problems because we're constantly stuck in a rut of blaming the Brits/The Man for all our problems.

Until we get the ability to self analyse our mistakes and learn from them, I don't see how we can avoid repeating those mistakes again. Half the population of this country are still obsessed with property, and if they were given the loans they would be buying half finished houses to "flip". We haven't gone away you know.

[Jackass]

I think that it is clear that we are entirely incapable of self Governance.

To this day, there is so much political tribalism relating to the treaty (100 years later!) and the Fianna Failers voting for Dev and the Fianna Gaelers voting for Collins, the Irish electorate would seem to be self loathing gluttens for punishment.

The reason the FF party is so corrupt is that anybody who is interested in getting backhanders knows that if they join FF, they'll be elected to councils etc. because of the posters saying FF candidate.

We have absolutely made a heaven for the corrupt in this country, and the electorate are either too stupid or too damaged by 800 YEARS!! to be able to have any sense of rational judgement.

As for the quality of our Governance, Dublin being "the second city of the empire" and the "Rome of the Empire", we had a city which was the 5th largest in Europe, with one of the best public transport infrastructures in the world with spectacular urban planning and architecture, it was like Dublin was the British Empires "do-over" of London if they could start from scratch.

Since we got our hands on it (and the country as a whole), it has turned into a run down dump, we couldn't manage the Economy for 70 odd years we were an impoverished nation by developed world standards, GDP per capita only eventually catching up with the rest of Europe in the lead up to the most recent boom, and then as soon as we get a bit of prosperity, we manage to bankrupt the country.

As unbelievable as this is to say for an Irish man, the worst thing that ever happened to this country was leaving British Rule. But that's what it all comes back to in my opinion, an inability to move on from independence and a stagnation of not having the skills or the structure to run a country once we got it.

AlekSmart

hmmm wrote: »

.
Until we get the ability to self analyse our mistakes and learn from them, I don't see how we can avoid repeating those mistakes again. Half the population of this country are still obsessed with property, and if they were given the loans they would be buying half finished houses to "flip". We haven't gone away you know.

And by Golly Hmmmmm,if our Government through it's NAMA subsidiary has its way,it's only a matter of time before the Good Times roll again !!!!!

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/maple-10-man-seeks-to-buy-300m-nama-loans-29242911.html

Mr Reilly owns development sites in Dundalk, Donabate, Stepaside and elsewhere, which he hopes to build on as demand for new homes returns.

I'm sure the self-analysisometer was whizzing around when this Lad entered into negotiations with NAMA....

Until we can shake off this national befuddlement with property ownership and start pressurizing Politicians to look again at the rental market,we are forever doomed to be broke !

maninasia

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You're confusing administrative ineptitude with incapacity.

Unless you believe that the Irish are a genetically inferior species, then ineptitude can be overcome.
Some of your points - this issue about alcohol and the army 'in case of attack' - are just irrelevant altogether.

What I believe exists is something far more serious - a structural incapacity to govern. This, I believe, is based on the size of the country, its lack of resources, and the open nature of the economy.

It has nothing to do with the Irish 'character' or any other silly generalisation.

A serious country and serious citizens don't constantly rely on others. Look at the coastguard as another example. I'm not saying we need a massive army or airforce but we should have something that could protect us as a sovereign nation. It's the attitude of 'sure it'll be grand' and 'somebody will help out if needed'.

As for alchol being irrelevant, it is not! Alcohol is firmly placed in the centre of Irish society and it damages the brain, is a depressant and also causes liver damage. Look at our recent Taoisigh, especially Brian Cowen. He was Minister for Finance during the boom and Taoiseach during the nationalisation of the banks. Laughing stock.

All these things matter, citizens culture and characteristics matter. This is noting to do with genetics but cultural propensities. A nation is built from the ground up as much as top down. Look at Greece as an example.

Cody Pomeray

maninasia wrote: »

A serious country and serious citizens don't constantly rely on others. Look at the coastguard as another example. I'm not saying we need a massive army or airforce but we should have something that could protect us as a sovereign nation. It's the attitude of 'sure it'll be grand' and 'somebody will help out if needed'.

I can't think of any country of our size which could credibly defend itself against a half-serious aggressor. In fact, most countries, with only a small number of exceptions, rely on their allies during defence emergencies. Which is part of the reason why we have EU Battlegroups.

This is all mind bogglingly irrelevant to the question of self governance.

There are valid reasons why Ireland is not fit for self governance. It has nothing to do with an invasion or alcohol, or other cultural tendencies.

I am talking about serious structural incapacity - like lack of natural resources, combined with a small population, a monetary system it cannot control and a necessarily open economy.

maninasia

I don't deny there are issues regarding the things you have mentioned, although they can all be dealt with. But there are plenty of countries with small populations or relatively small economies and no natural resources which are doing just fine.

I can't think of any country of our size which could credibly defend itself against a half-serious aggressor.

Singapore is a famous case in point for both being a small country with an open economy , no real natural resources and having a serious army and air force for it's own defense (140 air force jets, mandatory conscription). They know what it means to run their own country, even if is not a full democracy. Taiwan is the same, a small country with almost no natural resources, with an airforce consisting of hundreds of jets, battle groups and submarines but a land mass half the size of Ireland. Taiwan has an ally in the US but it knows that it's existence is predicated on it's own ability to defend itself too. There are also other examples dotted around the world. Again I'm not saying that Ireland needs to go to this length but the fact is advanced drones or some lousy old F16 jets could roll over the country tomorrow and I doubt there would be much that the Irish aircorps (not even an airforce) could do. This is explicitly placing our defense needs at the behest of our allies and out of our control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Corps_(Ireland)

The Air Corps military roles and the functions it carries out are those of an army air corps rather than that of a conventional military air force. The Air Corps air space control and ground attack capacity is limited to low level and during clear weather. Helicopter troop transport is also limited but is now available 24 hours a day. The Air Corps non-military capabilities in aid to the civil power and other Government departments include Ministerial transport, fishery protection, limited maritime patrol, Garda support, search and rescue over both land and sea, an air ambulance service and non-combatant evacuation. The Air Corps provides the State the capacity to meet any ongoing needs and should it be required the basis to expand.

You kind of made my case for me though when you said we could rely on being part of the EU battlegroup, but then again we are supposed to be a neutral country in charge of our own affairs right? So are we to be self governed or governed by bigger partners from Europe? Can we really be neutral if we depend on other countries to defend ourselves? Which is it?

It's a similar mentality in a way that said we could rely on the EU for structural funds or ECB bailout etc. Most of the Irish population didn't expect the Germans or the Americans to be so hardnosed when it came to getting the debt taken care of. Ah sure somebody will help us out, it'll be grand, they'll cut us a deal and we are small fry, everyone loves the Irish. The thing is, the Germans (control of ECB) and the Americans (Timothy Geitner telling Ireland not to let the banks fail) rightly helped themselves out first and now ALL Irish taxpayers have to pay some private individuals debts! They didn't cut us much of a deal because we had very little to fall back on and they knew it. If we wanted more economic control we should have our own currency, but there's very little appetite for that as people, perhaps rightfully, suspect we are not very capable of managing our own fiscal affairs.

This mentality matters, because if you think you've only got yourself to rely on you are going to think longer and harder about your policies. You also avoided my point of the effect of alcohol on our former Minister for Finance and Taoiseach. If you don't think it has an effect on decision making or fitness for work you would be going against the medical consensus. Then there was the Minister of Transport caught driving drunk the wrong way down the motorway, he didn't resign or lose his job either. These are pretty inconvenient truths as most Irish, including myself, have been known to drink to excess.

I know I'm coming across a bit harsh, there are some admirable things about the Irish system of government and citizens of Ireland, but I just have to point out that we are not really serious about our independence in so many ways.

Cody Pomeray

maninasia wrote: »

Singapore is a famous case in point for both being a small country with an open economy , no real natural resources and having a serious army and air force for it's own defense (140 air force jets, mandatory conscription). They know what it means to run their own country, even if is not a full democracy.

I love the way you dismiss "not a full democracy" almost as an afterthought, and completely ignore the other factors I mentioned, like ability to control the supply of money, our profile of expectaions (including, you know, democracy and press freedom), which combined with the size of the country and other dependcies on foreign jurisdictions, just makes Ireland unfeasible and unrealistic as a proposal for an independent country.

You kind of made my case for me though when you said we could rely on being part of the EU battlegroup, but then again we are supposed to be a neutral country in charge of our own affairs right?

The point, which you're completely ignoring despite it being written in black and white, is that most countries recognize the necessity to engage in military alliances for their own protection.

Or have you never heard of the 5 power defence arrangement?

I know I'm coming across a bit harsh

You're not coming across as harsh, you're coming across as having points that are totally irrelevant to Ireland's structural inability to engage in a program of sovereign independence.

maninasia

I can't think of any country of our size which could credibly defend itself against a half-serious aggressor.

Singapore, Taiwan, most of the Gulf states, I'm sure there are more in Africa and Central America etc and probably a few in EU.

I love the way you dismiss "not a full democracy" almost as an afterthought, and
completely ignore the other factors I mentioned, like ability to control the
supply of money, our profile of expectaions (including, you know, democracy and
press freedom), which combined with the size of the country and other dependcies
on foreign jurisdictions, just makes Ireland unfeasible and unrealistic as a
proposal for an independent country.

I love the way Singapore blew a hole straight through your argument and you diverted to another topic, democracy, as if that changes the facts.
You keep trying to separate important facts like defense out of the ability to manage one's own country. If you can't even manage to have an air force, you are going to be completely dependent on other countries for defense, not just partially. How can one then say one is neutral? Neutral as in not able to fight a war at all? It's just another example of wishful thinking, of dependece on others.

You throw up strawmen regarding democracy which is not really related to managing an independent country. That's a separate matter. For your reference Singapore is not democratic but Taiwan is, both are small nations with little in the way of natural resource which are also bound into defense arrangements, however they correctly surmise that defense is ultimately dependent on oneself first!

You keep saying Ireland is 'small' but I'm not sure what that means, there are plenty of smaller countries around that do manage to do all these things and are smaller than Ireland. This small thing is a complete excuse.

You are trying to separate out mentality from the nation's structure, but they are actually keenly related. It's this mentality that broadly supports the government continuing to borrow 10 billion per year to keep the current show on the road instead of facing hard truths earlier.

The point, which you're completely ignoring despite it being written in black
and white, is that most countries recognize the necessity to engage in military
alliances for their own protection.

And you keep missing that if you don't have an air force or capable army or navy how can you contribute to a 'defense arrangement'?

You're not coming across as harsh, you're coming across as having points that
are totally irrelevant to Ireland's structural inability to engage in a program
of sovereign independence.

How is not having an air force or capable and sober Prime Ministers and Ministers 'irrelevant' to the ability to maintain sovereign independence, I'm afraid you are not making any sense at all!

Cody Pomeray

maninasia wrote: »

Singapore, Taiwan, most of the Gulf states, I'm sure there are more in Africa and Central America etc and probably a few in EU.

But that's nonsense. Don't you remember me raising the FDPA in respect of Singapore? I wrote about it in my last post and you have not responded to it.

What the FDPA is indicative of, is that most countries are dependent upon military alliances for self defence. Yes, this includes Singapore.

I love the way Singapore blew a hole straight through your argument and you diverted to another topic, democracy, as if that changes the facts.

No, I pointed out something I have been saying since the beginning of the thread, that there are a number of components to the structural incapacity of the Republic of Ireland as a wholly independent entity.

To repeat my summary of these structural issues, they are a combination of population size, lack of natural resources, inability to control the supply of money, dependence on foreign trade, profile of expectations (including democracy), and legal constraints including EU law.

Taken one by one, these do not make for a state incapable of independence. Taken as a group, they do.

You are trying to separate out mentality froYoum the nation's structure, but they are actually keenly related.

Nonsense. You are using this issue to peddle your own daft generalizations about Irish characteristics.

I'm not interested in stereotypes, I'm interested in the structures that facilitate or disallow the concept of sovereign independence. They exist, but they're not the petty barstool concerns you're talking about.

dsmythy

All this talk of Ireland defending itself militarily is pointless as Ireland's national defence strategy presuming we had no outside help is to fall back into a guerilla campaign. Of course we would have the assistance of one or more European countries especially the UK as presumably an invasion of Ireland would generally not be in their interest.

maninasia

Which proves that we are not really interested in full sovereign independence and are completely dependent on other states. If anything goes wrong, we have no real ability to deal with it ourselves and have to completely fall on the mercy of other sovereign states. That's fine, but it should be recognised for what it is.

maninasia

Nonsense. You are using this issue to peddle your own daft generalizations about Irish characteristics.

Nonsense, you are ignoring reality. I've given you the clear example of the Ministers in charge during the boom and bust who have serious alcohol problems. You think that doesn't matter, you must be daft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPUhxJHo_Bs
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2010/09/23/brian-cowen-drunk-the-12-hour-bender/

This guy was our Taoiseach when we signed up for the bailout plan.

But to say Ireland, in general, doesn't have an alcohol problem, and that somehow that alcohol abuse will not affect peoples behaviour and physical fitness, is rubbish.
We are top of the league of binge drinkers. It's all there in the stats.

You are the one denying reality, I'll keep putting it back in your face. I certainly don't think alcohol abuse was the major cause of issues in Ireland, but it's got to be in the mix to some degree because, it has REAL PHYSICAL effects on ability to think, behave, emotional control and physical wellbeing.

maninasia

To repeat my summary of these structural issues, they are a combination of population size, lack of natural resources, inability to control the supply of money, dependence on foreign trade, profile of expectations (including democracy), and legal constraints including EU law.

Repeating this mantra doesn't make it correct...i.e. the old chestnut we are a small open economy at the vagaries of international circumstance guff. Plenty of small countries are doing just fine like Singapore, Netherlands, Switzerland, Denmark etc.

These things are not problems of themselves, its the WAY we deal with our circumstances that is the problem.

Cody Pomeray

maninasia wrote: »

But to say Ireland, in general, doesn't have an alcohol problem

I don't think it's safe to say much about the distribution of the undoubted problems that exist with alcohol consumption in Ireland.

It's a cultural problem, sure, but it doesn't make the country incapable of self governance.

I get the feeling you're just peddling your own grievances here, in place of a discussion about the deeper structural problems with Irish 'independence'.

I mean, it's interesting how you completely ignore what I would suggest are widely agreed limits to Irish independence - especially monetary policy and EU law - or you say "Repeating this mantra doesn't make it correct". I think it's pretty clear to most people why factors like that limit a country's ability to self-govern.

Alcohol is a serious issue, but it has nothing to do with Irish autonomy.

It was probably inevitable this thread would be used for people to hang out all sorts of stereotypes with aspects of Irish society so just go ahead.

maninasia

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I don't think it's safe to say much about the distribution of the undoubted problems that exist with alcohol consumption in Ireland.

It's a cultural problem, sure, but it doesn't make the country incapable of self governance.

I get the feeling you're just peddling your own grievances here, in place of a discussion about the deeper structural problems with Irish 'independence'.

I mean, it's interesting how you completely ignore what I would suggest are widely agreed limits to Irish independence - especially monetary policy and EU law - or you say "Repeating this mantra doesn't make it correct". I think it's pretty clear to most people why factors like that limit a country's ability to self-govern.

Alcohol is a serious issue, but it has nothing to do with Irish autonomy.

It was probably inevitable this thread would be used for people to hang out all sorts of stereotypes with aspects of Irish society so just go ahead.

Well we can operate within the EU law framework just as other more economically successful and more stable EU countries do. Where does EU law hold us back specifically? We enjoy special treatment regarding tax rates and our agri sector is also a bet beneficiary of EU largesse.

As for monetary policy, it can be useful to have ones own currency and control of interest rates. However, the Euro also gives Ireland a stable currency base and access to cheaper credit and transparency on pricing. It wasn't the Eurozones fault that we did not control credit flow in our own country and promoted lax regulation and property madness. That was all our doing. If the govt or people wanted they could have instituted property taxes to deter speculation and also place limits on borrowing and ask banks to have higher capital:loan ratios. None of this was done because there was no appetite to throttle back and plan for downturns in the 'greatest little country in the world TM'. Even now the EU does not force us to overspend by 10 billion plus year year by year.

Cody Pomeray

maninasia wrote: »

Well we can operate within the EU law framework just as other more economically successful and more stable EU countries do.

You are now intent on going on about whether or not you think something is a good idea, or identifying the causes of the Irish crisis, which is totally irrelevant.

This is a thread about autonomy. The test is not simply economic performance or any other test you might wish to apply beyond sovereign autonomy.

Clearly, given that it is established in the Treaties that European Union legislation enjoys precedence over domestic legislation, this amounts to a structural barrier to unimpeded domestic governance.

Clearly, given that it is established in the Treaties that control of the money supply is beyond the competence of the Irish Government or its agencies, this too amounts to a structural barrier in domestic governance.

Obviously, we wouldn't put up with these structures if there were not considerable and valuable payoffs.

However, the fact remains, that these structures, in conjunction with other components, limit the capacity to self-govern the country.

Tea drinker

@Cody, it's proven that Irish corruption, lax regs, and cronyism played a large part in the collapse.
The financial regulator failed
The government not only failed but was deeply involved in acting in the interests of "that" clique.
The central bank failed
The Government broadcaster failed to show unbiased and informed opinion in the lead up to the crisis.
Even the voters failed to properly investigate what they were voting for - all they care about is nonsense local items. Even Dublin is completely parochial, just a hodge podge of villages grown atop one another, with local "politics" trumping all.
Partly as a result we don't have a sense of nationalism, only villagism, and other jisms. What's best for the country is not as important as the village. In Ireland we are taught that nationalism means terrorism.
We are close to being hopelessly bankrupt, one financial shock in europe might do it.

Even today many people don't want to face facts, in fact eh facts are the enemy of Irish people, we don't talk straight and I'd go further and say Thatcher was bang on when she said we are a pack of liars - well we are. Including the Irish media who never let facts get in the way of a story, and some sections of the media have been trying since 2008 to restart the property market.
Too many stories of people publicly claiming poverty while hiding many houses and money is tiring.
Bunch of feckin liars and sure we still love them
heucchh

Dannyboy83

Sand wrote: »

The difference between Ireland and better governed countries is not Irish people. It is the constitution of the government. Irish government is extremely weak, with few checks or balances, practically zero transparency in policy making, actual zero accountability in public service, high capture of institutions by vested interests, and a systematic dissonance between local elections and national government. Its an odd situation where the government of the day is so obsessed with pleasing various special interest groups appointed as intermediaries with supposed citizen concerns, yet the average citizen is entirely alienated from their government.

Essentially Irish government is entirely at the mercy of the individuals within it, because absolutely no one gave any thought to limiting its power bar traditional deference to the Catholic Church in social matters. You'll see this repeatedly, even on this forum - the traditional rebuke to anyone who questions the government line is to demand that they justify their refusal to support the governments policy. The government is never asked to support their own policy. That's not an exaggeration - a single man, Pat Swords, is involved in a titanic legal battle with the Department of Energy (who are spending your tax euros in their defense). Mr Swords query is simple - he is asking the DoE to justify their policy of wind power subsidies. A huge long court case has resulted because the DoE refuses to provide any evidence to support the policy chosen. That's not part of an evil DoE plot. That's just how Irish policy is made. The DoE is probably honestly outraged that anyone has asked them to explain *why* they picked a particular policy.

This is not a traditional Irish malaise. It is not something we have to accept as inevitable. It is a system of governance that was chosen, and we can choose better systems. Defeatism in this respect only serves the entrenched vested interests. If Ireland were to be governed under a better system, we would achieve vastly better results. The Irish people are well capable of governing themselves - some basic reforms would prove the point.

This is spot on.
It was spot on when I started first saw this topic 5 years ago.
And it will still be spot on when the same topic is recycled in 5 years time.

Some small changes could yield big differences. A list system...It's all been discussed before.
Everyone is aware of the changes which ought to/could occur.
But our parliamentary system has created inexorable inertia....and so it will still be spot on when the same topic is recycled in 5 years time.

Cody Pomeray

Tea drinker wrote: »

@Cody, it's proven that Irish corruption, lax regs, and cronyism played a large part in the collapse.

What's that got to do with anything?

Am I in the wrong thread?

The question is "Is/was the country ever capable of managing itself?"

i.e. is Ireland capable of autonomy.

Yes there was a catastrophic banking and economic collapse. Don't get caught up in the causes of that single collapse, the answer to the question obviously lies in the origin of patterns of inability to govern and the structures that impede governance over the lifetime of the state.

You'll lose sight of that if you turn this into a treatise of the causes of the Irish financial crisis 2008 - 2013.

maninasia

The problems in the political system are obvious and they have been obvious for decades. The question is, why hasn't there been any root and branch reform?

Is it because of the politicians themselves or the inertia and disinterest of the Irish people? Again the top down or bottom up question? Do Irish people really want to change the system? Are they going to get out there and get protesting?

I've seen the view repeated many times by people that protesting is a waste of time. It doesn't change anything. Yet if you don't go out and protest and get off your backside where is the pressure for reform.

The same with voting for political parties. Why do we have no new political parties of note that have sprung up?

So I really think you can't separate the government from the people who vote for it. It's like trying to bake a cake from a recipe without paying attention to the ingredients, or writing a sentence with excellent grammar and no meaning.

They need to go hand in hand.

Now I happen to believe that Ireland has the ingredients to do much better myself, but there seems to be a lack of willpower or effort to effect change.

Going Forward

maninasia wrote: »

A serious country and serious citizens don't constantly rely on others. Look at the coastguard as another example. I'm not saying we need a massive army or airforce but we should have something that could protect us as a sovereign nation. It's the attitude of 'sure it'll be grand' and 'somebody will help out if needed'.

As for alchol being irrelevant, it is not! Alcohol is firmly placed in the centre of Irish society and it damages the brain, is a depressant and also causes liver damage. Look at our recent Taoisigh, especially Brian Cowen. He was Minister for Finance during the boom and Taoiseach during the nationalisation of the banks. Laughing stock.

All these things matter, citizens culture and characteristics matter. This is noting to do with genetics but cultural propensities. A nation is built from the ground up as much as top down. Look at Greece as an example.

I'm inclined to agree. How many of us has dared to reconsider the infamous Punch caricature?

Dannyboy83

maninasia wrote: »

The problems in the political system are obvious and they have been obvious for decades. The question is, why hasn't there been any root and branch reform?

Is it because of the politicians themselves or the inertia and disinterest of the Irish people?

Very much the former in my opinion.
My view is that the entrenched people/system are the problem, along with the shadow government and vested interests.

On a regular basis, I meet Irish people in business and sport who compete at the highest levels, compete on an international basis, despite an uneven playing field and limited resources.

There is essentially a dichotomy in Ireland.



As to why there has been no reform - Reform has been offered innumerable times and Irish people have voted for it every time.
Most recently, just 2 years ago!** So I don't believe it can be disinterest of the electorate, given the landslide victory.

Peaceful, democratic reform has been made impossible because it relies on a few elected individuals. The same problem which causes our system to malfunction is the problem which blocks reform of the system.



**

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/fine-gael-promises-radical-reform-26702332.html
Fine Gael promises 'radical' reform
13 FEBRUARY 2011

Fine Gael has claimed it could overhaul the political system with a referendum on Oireachtas reform if handed power.


Enda Kenny, party leader, said he would put proposals to scrap the Seanad and remove 20 seats from the Dail to a public vote within a year of leading a new government.

FTA69

[QUOTE='[Jackass]As for the quality of our Governance, Dublin being "the second city of the empire" and the "Rome of the Empire", we had a city which was the 5th largest in Europe, with one of the best public transport infrastructures in the world with spectacular urban planning and architecture, it was like Dublin was the British Empires "do-over" of London if they could start from scratch.
[/QUOTE]

We also had a city that was teeming with tuberculosis, alcoholism, slum housing, child mortality and all the other things that go with grinding poverty. Ironically the thousands of people who joined the British Army during WW1 were fighting a country that didn't treat its subjects half as badly. The only significant source of employment in Dublin was unskilled labour on the docks, which was the result of a wider malaise of Ireland (outside Belfast) having no significant industry in comparison with the rest of the UK. Less than 50 years after the Act of Union (much vaunted here on this thread) we saw a Famine which led to a million and a half people dying and a similar amount of people having to leave the country in desperation.

I'm not saying the post independence record is anything to be proud of because it certainly wasn't. It was and is a crony-driven construct dominated by a sectional elite. However this notion that everything was sunshine and roses pre-independence is revisionist nonsense that would make even the likes of Eoghan Harris blush.

KyussBishop

maninasia wrote: »

The problems in the political system are obvious and they have been obvious for decades. The question is, why hasn't there been any root and branch reform?

Is it because of the politicians themselves or the inertia and disinterest of the Irish people? Again the top down or bottom up question? Do Irish people really want to change the system? Are they going to get out there and get protesting?

I've seen the view repeated many times by people that protesting is a waste of time. It doesn't change anything. Yet if you don't go out and protest and get off your backside where is the pressure for reform.

The same with voting for political parties. Why do we have no new political parties of note that have sprung up?

So I really think you can't separate the government from the people who vote for it. It's like trying to bake a cake from a recipe without paying attention to the ingredients, or writing a sentence with excellent grammar and no meaning.

They need to go hand in hand.

Now I happen to believe that Ireland has the ingredients to do much better myself, but there seems to be a lack of willpower or effort to effect change.

People really only discourage protesting, on issues where they know their own views are in the minority (with the views they oppose, being in the majority), thus they want to discourage activism on their opponents part.

You didn't see them saying to recent abortion protestors "nothing will change, you're wasting your time", because they don't hold anti-abortion views (or just know it's unpopular to and loses them credibility), or even are pro-abortion themselves.

It's a way of trying to disempower opponents, by trying to make them think protesting achieves nothing, i.e. to make them think that politicians and government can get away with not listening to their populous forever, which is on its face nonsense.


If you refine your narrative well enough, that you can succinctly convince people that something is an issue worth getting out and protesting over, then you can spur protests and spread the word, and convince more people with the right narrative, until a critical mass is achieved.

This narrative and protesting will constantly be combated by political opponents who don't want to see the goals of the protest come about, and they will use every fallacious tactic they have, to slur the protest (in order to prejudice people against the protests narrative, before they can be convinced by it), and to try and convince people that protesting is a waste of time, to pour cold water on it and try to make it die out.


This is why I think the 'no stated goals' position of the Occupy groups in many countries, was a strength (in the generality of the movement) as well as a weakness, which led it to petering if not enough critical mass built up:
You need a solid narrative (even if not any stated goals) to counter the crap/slurs that will be thrown at the movement, so the original generalized 'no stated goals' Occupy movement, can only survive by spawning smaller movements within (branching-out from) Occupy, that have a strong voice/narrative which actually gets through to the wider public.

Without that, the overall movement will just be vocally/propagandically overpowered by political opponents, with stronger access to publishing in online/tv/print media, who will succeed in tarring the image of the movement in the publics view, and it will muddy/shroud discussion over the actual issues the group is protesting about, because it will become all about bashing the group as a whole, and totally ignoring the problems being protested about.


Always be very cynical towards people who would try to convince you, that protesting achieves nothing, because that is the wider message political opponents who support the status-quo, things staying as they are, will promote to make people voluntarily disempower themselves, disarming one of the most important political tools available to the population.

Larbre34

Political turkeys arent going to vote for Christmas, unless we are prepared to vote instead for geese.

The Country has management issues, yes, all rooted in the clientelism of politics here. However I would take our problems over the social problems of many so-called developed nations like the US, Britain and France any day. And twice on a Sunday......

Cody Pomeray

FTA69 wrote: »

We also had a city that was teeming with tuberculosis, alcoholism, slum housing, child mortality and all the other things that go with grinding poverty.

That in itself is not an argument for independence.

I mean just because, say, Dagenham is socially abused, doesn't give it an entitlement or due reason to seek political independence, whereby it may fare even worse.

I would see the most logical response to Irish social conditions as having been in the Labour movement with its bona fide Labour objectives.

[Jackass]

FTA69 wrote: »

We also had a city that was teeming with tuberculosis, alcoholism, slum housing, child mortality and all the other things that go with grinding poverty. Ironically the thousands of people who joined the British Army during WW1 were fighting a country that didn't treat its subjects half as badly. The only significant source of employment in Dublin was unskilled labour on the docks, which was the result of a wider malaise of Ireland (outside Belfast) having no significant industry in comparison with the rest of the UK. Less than 50 years after the Act of Union (much vaunted here on this thread) we saw a Famine which led to a million and a half people dying and a similar amount of people having to leave the country in desperation.

I'm not saying the post independence record is anything to be proud of because it certainly wasn't. It was and is a crony-driven construct dominated by a sectional elite. However this notion that everything was sunshine and roses pre-independence is revisionist nonsense that would make even the likes of Eoghan Harris blush.

Of course, I accept that, I'm not trying to make it out that Ireland was great under British rule, or that it was even remotely acceptable by the standards of the day, let alone modern standards. I hold the personal view that the great famine of Ireland was one of the greatest atrocities and one of the largest genocides in human history (of which many academic papers have been written and many historians would agree). Worse yet, an unrecognised one. (I'm not sure if you've ever read a UK schools secondary school history book, I have, and it's quite appalling to this day how they portray Ireland under British rule and fail to acknowledge the terrible, brutal rule they imposed on us...)

Having said that, the conditions you describe in Dublin were wide spread around Europe post-industrial revolution as urban centres expanded at a rapid pace giving rise to slums and disease ridden parts of the city.

But back on topic, I acknowledge everything you say about the period and perhaps my comments were quite flippant, but in terms of where we probably would be today had we been Governed by the British, I think we would be in a far healthier state, not that I would want or prefer that, I would much prefer an Irish Governed Ireland, but sadly we seem incapable.

Ideally, I would like to see a 10 year consoltation process to complete a reform of virtually every aspect of Irish public life, from public office to councils to civil service to the constitution to the entire legal and judiciary system, and just about every corner of Governance with a view to "re-launching" the country in a decade, with complete reform and overhall of everything. The current system simply does not work.

FTA69

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That in itself is not an argument for independence.

I mean just because, say, Dagenham is socially abused, doesn't give it an entitlement or due reason to seek political independence, whereby it may fare even worse.

I would see the most logical response to Irish social conditions as having been in the Labour movement with its bona fide Labour objectives.

I never said that deprivation is an excuse for independence, rather I brought that stuff up to counter the notion that Ireland pre-independence was a grand place altogether as opposed to the neglected colony it actually was.

Ireland's right to independence stems from its nationhood, a claim which was bolstered throughout history due to the calibre of British governance in Ireland over the years. Ireland was and is a distinct country with a cultural and linguistic heritage that long precedes the Act of Union. That is the grounds for independence.

[Jackass],

Your points are spot on I feel mate and sorry if I took you up wrong. I personally don't think independence was the problem, rather the terms in which it came into being. As Kevin O'Higgins said, "it was the most conservative revolution in history." The Ireland that was instituted in 1923 was a state for the church, the strong farmer and f*ck everyone else. Unfortunately Ireland is still a country that exists for the benefit of a certain class of people as opposed to all its citizens equally and the entire system is geared toward maintaining that.