Is/was the country ever capable of managing itself?

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.

Cody Pomeray

FTA69 wrote: »

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.

.

On the one hand you're saying that maladministration and poverty has nothing to do with our right to independence.

In the next paragraph you say it bolstered it.

Well which is it?

FTA69

I said that Ireland's right to independence stems from it's nationhood. The fact is that British misgovernment was also a huge factor in attracting people to the independence movement. A process which occurred in many other countries.

The Corinthian

Irish economic history is a culmination of numerous factors; structural/demographic, ideological and cultural.

To begin with Ireland is a sparsely populated nation and this can make economies of scale very difficult to achieve. Many businesses find it difficult to make a profit here, because the we don't have the population to actually support a large enough market to justify the investment of trading. Publishing is a good example of this as its revenue (sales or advertising) is directly related to circulation.

Then there's economic and population distribution. In that respect, we're not unlike Greece; one big (capital) city where the bulk of the population and industry is concentrated, a few smaller cities with a fraction of same and the rest are one horse towns - such distribution is highly inefficient and places serious strains on any economy.

Historically, ideology has been a factor too. With independence we decided to peruse a high degree of autarky, despite the fact that as a small nation we were less able to do this, based upon a romantic, nationalist ideal, which saw us as a nation of farmers and comely maidens dancing at the crossroads. "To maintain as many families as practicable on the land" is still a stated aim of Fianna Fail, for example.

But were I to put my finger on the single biggest factor it is cultural; we're professional victims. I remember in the eighties asking why Ireland was so backward economically and being told it was because of "800 years of oppression" - 60 years after independence!

This sense of victimhood, that someone else was responsible for our plight - be it the English, the Church, the bankers or whomever - has led us to a situation whereby we don't really feel responsible and, worse still, expect someone else to bail us out because of this.

This is probably best evidenced by the difference between the Irish at home and those abroad, who lacking someone to blame or look to for a bailout, were able to roll up their sleeves and succeed where back home we sat back, waiting for someone else to sort it out for us.

And it is this that has led us to forever seek an "Irish solution to an Irish problem" where it comes to our economy and governance - short-term, ultimately self-defeating, egocentric and half-arsed.

In reality, many other nations share our corruption, provincialism or low economies of scale, however few are burdened with the same level of victimhood. Most of Europe managed to roll up its sleeves after World War II and had left us (a neutral nation who avoided the conflict) in the dust within a decade. Instead we moaned about how the 'Emergency' had destroyed our economy and how we were suffering from "800 years of oppression".

And from what I can see, we've not changed much.

Cody Pomeray

Oh God.