Tomorrow is the big day, where the next Dáil will be elected in Ireland. I had hoped to write more about the actual campaign, but sadly real life got in the way. So instead, here's the election boiled down to one badly-written post:
Trends and Strategy
Fine Gael, the centre-right party, looks set to win almost 40% of the vote, which could get them a single-party majority in the Dáil - something which hasn't happened in Ireland for decades. They'd a good campaign, deciding to hide their leader, famous for his poor media performance, while presenting a good team to fight the election battle on the airwaves. There were 4 leadership debates (and Enda Kenny only took part in three of them, which caused a bit of a fuss), where Enda simply had to not say anything incredibly daft and Fine Gael wouldn't be harmed.
Labour had a terrible campaign. The popularity of their leader, Eamon Gilmore, tempted them to run a presidential campaign with the slogan "Gilmore for Taoiseach" (Labour have never led a government in Ireland before). Given that Labour is the third party of Irish politics, it would have been hard to conduct a cabinet election since they had a more limited gene pool to draw on from their last Dáil cohort, which might explain the lack of a Plan B when the presidential campaign failed. Their finance spokesperson, Joan Burton, was disappointing on TV - the now famous outburst on Tonight with Vincent Browne damaged her image, and the strategy of selling a vision meant that in debates with her competitors she rarely got around to the detail (time limits and impatient presenters made sure of that): not a good position in a generally policy-dominated election. The "vision" point goes for all Labour performances: the party seemed more concerned about its brand than the policy. This changed after the first week and a half, with Gilmore doing well in the debates and trying to insert more substance, and Labour's poll ratings consolidated, but I wonder how much it will add anything to Labour's vote.
It should be said that Labour haven't had a good campaign in the light of their ambitions, but they will increase their vote and their seats. With a different strategy they could have done better yet.
Fianna Fáil probably had as good an election as they could have. In the last leadership debate, Micheál Martin was on the attack, and probably turned people off by talking over the other leaders, but it made clear that FF needs to consolidate its core vote. It seems to be around the 14-16% mark, which means that it's disasterous, but there was little that could be done about that after its record in government.
Sinn Féin and the ULA seemed to have done well for themselves with their messages of withdrawing from the IMF-EU bailout and insistuting a socialist economy with nationalised banks respectively. They will still be small parties, but it shows a fragmentation of the left, and it probably attracted support away from Labour.
The Greens look like they might be wiped out. I agree with Jason O'Mahony that this would be a pity, since they actually tried to achieve - and did achieve - some of their manifesto promises. that's not to say that they don't deserve punishment, but a wipe-out is a bit disproportionate in my opinion.
There are a record number of independents running this year, and around 17 could get elected (how votes split and transfer may decide this). There are still very localist independent who only care about constituency matters, but there are a new breed of independents who are campaigning on national issues, either from the left or the right. The phrase most often uttered by these independents is: "I will work with like-minded independents", to which my brain can't help muttering "what, you mean like in a party?". One of the tensions in democracy is between having independent-minded representatives, and the need to build broad coalitions to enact change. the party system has many faults, but I'm not convinced that independents will improve things much.
A European election?
Europe was a big issue in this election, but only in the limited sense of discussing what could be won from a renegotiation. There was no proper debate about what would need to be done about the entire Eurozone, though there was a brief mention (I counted 1 time during the campaign!) of Eurobonds being a good thing for Ireland. The level of tax harmonisation or budgetary convergence that might be negotiable in return for this and renegotiation of the bail out deal wasn't discussed, except to restate over and over that the coporation tax would not be for sale. In many ways it's natural that parties don't want to give away their negotiating position beforehand. However, these changes will require a referendum in Ireland, and perhaps in other Member States - we need to start speaking in a language of what is just for everyone in the Eurozone, and not simply "if it's good for us, it's good for everyone, because then we can pay some of the money back". The shape of the Eurozone will stay with us after we recover (however that happens, and however long it takes), so there should have been a more open discussion about this.
The Next Dáil
It's pretty clear from the poll trends that FG will near a majority on its own, and could form a government with the support of some independents. I'd like to see Labour stay out of government and lead the opposition. That would be a massive change in Irish politics as it would help solidify an opening left-right divide and end the old civil war political divide. Being in opposition and having that bigger gene pool (because Labour has done well in the election in that it will increase its seats, just not reach the huge ambitions it set itself in leading the next government) to construct a better alternative/shadow cabinet government. It could have big consequences for FF, who might not recover to lead a government in the forseeable future, and become the third party of Irish politics. Irish politics will be fluid in the future, so much depends on Labour's position over whether or not the civil war divide returns...
Showing posts with label Fine Gael. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fine Gael. Show all posts
Thursday, 24 February 2011
Thursday, 27 January 2011
The Politics of Debate
The former foreign minister, Micheál Martin, has won the contest to become the leader of Fianna Fáil, and immediately called for a series of leaders debates between himself, Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny, and Labour leader Eamonn Gilmore. He's asked for one at the start and at the end of the election campaign, as well as one in Irish. He is also calling for other head-to-head debates. So far Gilmore has accepted, while Kenny has sounded more cautious about Martin defining the structure of the debates.
With Fianna Fáil still well under 20% in the polls, Martin will naturally want to highlight his approach to both distance FF under him and under Cowen, and at the same time stick to the original message that Fianna Fáil is taking the tough but necessary decisions. Current Fianna Fáil strategy is to point out the differences between FG and Labour, since they will most likely form a coalition after the election. To some extent FG and Labour are happy enough with this: they tried a pact in the last election and failed, and their strategy this time is to run separate campaigns.
In some ways, this line of reasoning should be turned against FF: who would they form a coalition with? The Green Party are facing a likely wipeout - and in any case, FF will be a shadow of its former self in the next Dáil. Martin has spoken about not letting the election turn into a "coronation" of a Fine Gael-Labour coalition, but the sense I get from the question-and-answer session after Martin's leadership press conference is that the focus is on damage limitation, and therefore not on government. This in itself would suggest that the election will be a coronation of sorts, and as long as nobody even thinks to ask the question: well, who would you form a coalition with?, it will remain that way.
The politics of the debates is revealing, though it highlights something that has long been common knowledge in Ireland. FG's leader, Enda Kenny, is not a good speaker in the Dáil, and isn't seen as a strong leader. Gilmore, however, is, and its his leadership that was credited with the now-waning climb in the polls by Labour - called the "Gilmore Gale". The enthusaism of Gilmore and Martin for debates is clearly rooted in their desire to capitalise on this. Labour have never held the position of Taoiseach before, and they will want to revive the call "Gilmore for Taoiseach" in a meaningful sense - I wouldn't be surprised if Gilmore tries to use Martin's charges of irreconcilable differences between Labour and FG against Kenny by suggesting that a FF-FG coalition is a possibility. Such an outcome would be political suicide for Kenny and FG, but the ploy may attract some votes to Labour as a more anti-FF party (though I doubt the effect would be great).
The debates may just inject more fluidity into the polls and excitement into the Irish election.
With Fianna Fáil still well under 20% in the polls, Martin will naturally want to highlight his approach to both distance FF under him and under Cowen, and at the same time stick to the original message that Fianna Fáil is taking the tough but necessary decisions. Current Fianna Fáil strategy is to point out the differences between FG and Labour, since they will most likely form a coalition after the election. To some extent FG and Labour are happy enough with this: they tried a pact in the last election and failed, and their strategy this time is to run separate campaigns.
In some ways, this line of reasoning should be turned against FF: who would they form a coalition with? The Green Party are facing a likely wipeout - and in any case, FF will be a shadow of its former self in the next Dáil. Martin has spoken about not letting the election turn into a "coronation" of a Fine Gael-Labour coalition, but the sense I get from the question-and-answer session after Martin's leadership press conference is that the focus is on damage limitation, and therefore not on government. This in itself would suggest that the election will be a coronation of sorts, and as long as nobody even thinks to ask the question: well, who would you form a coalition with?, it will remain that way.
The politics of the debates is revealing, though it highlights something that has long been common knowledge in Ireland. FG's leader, Enda Kenny, is not a good speaker in the Dáil, and isn't seen as a strong leader. Gilmore, however, is, and its his leadership that was credited with the now-waning climb in the polls by Labour - called the "Gilmore Gale". The enthusaism of Gilmore and Martin for debates is clearly rooted in their desire to capitalise on this. Labour have never held the position of Taoiseach before, and they will want to revive the call "Gilmore for Taoiseach" in a meaningful sense - I wouldn't be surprised if Gilmore tries to use Martin's charges of irreconcilable differences between Labour and FG against Kenny by suggesting that a FF-FG coalition is a possibility. Such an outcome would be political suicide for Kenny and FG, but the ploy may attract some votes to Labour as a more anti-FF party (though I doubt the effect would be great).
The debates may just inject more fluidity into the polls and excitement into the Irish election.
Monday, 10 January 2011
Anonymous on Fine Gael's election website
The main Irish opposition party's election website has been the subject of some controversy (it is hosted from Miami, rather than employing Irish developers), and now someone inserted an Anonymous image yesterday with the words:
(Originally discovered over at Politics.ie; hat-tip Maman Poulet. It looks like it was a link).
The site is down at the time of writing, with a holding message in place.
The new website had been set up to ask voters what they thought is wrong in Ireland, and what they would suggest to solve the problems. Clearly the idea was to reach out to voters and to portray Fine Gael as the party that listens, but taking down the party's policies to open up a debate on its website - one supposed to influence policy - damages Fine Gael's image as the party that has been producing researched policy up to now. It's well meaning, but a bad electoral move in my opinion. The point of a political party is to present a platform from an ideological perspective that they believe will improve things. When the biggest question mark over Fine Gael is whether Edna Kenny would be a good leader, this gives the appearance that Fine Gael simply want to become the next managers of Ireland, without any core beliefs, whatever the true situation may be.
This new website has turned out to be a lot of trouble this week.
"Nothing is safe, you put your faith in this political party and they take no measures to protect you.
They offer you free speech yet they censor your voice.
WAKE UP!"
(Originally discovered over at Politics.ie; hat-tip Maman Poulet. It looks like it was a link).
The site is down at the time of writing, with a holding message in place.
The new website had been set up to ask voters what they thought is wrong in Ireland, and what they would suggest to solve the problems. Clearly the idea was to reach out to voters and to portray Fine Gael as the party that listens, but taking down the party's policies to open up a debate on its website - one supposed to influence policy - damages Fine Gael's image as the party that has been producing researched policy up to now. It's well meaning, but a bad electoral move in my opinion. The point of a political party is to present a platform from an ideological perspective that they believe will improve things. When the biggest question mark over Fine Gael is whether Edna Kenny would be a good leader, this gives the appearance that Fine Gael simply want to become the next managers of Ireland, without any core beliefs, whatever the true situation may be.
This new website has turned out to be a lot of trouble this week.
Sunday, 9 January 2011
Promising Political Reform
Political reform is high on the agenda in Irish politics these days. Labour now has a paper of 140 proposals (the Twitter approach, perhaps?) for "New Government, Better Government" (PDF). Generally, the papers proposals are fair enough - longer periods with the Dáil in session, greater opportunity for private members' Bills and amendments, greater transparency of executive decision-making (whether it was a minister or a delegated power to a level in his/her department)...
Some of the major changes have been highlighted in The Irish Times:
Labour would also call a Constitutional Convention to review the Constitution, and proposed changes would be put to referendum. The Convention would consist of 90 members - 30 politicians, 30 citizens drawn randomly as they are for juries, and 30 NGOs/academics. 30 citizens seems too small to me if they want to get a good cross-section of society, and what impact they would make would depend on how the Convention is structured - if debates are fragmented, it could be steered one way or another. I'm also not comfortable with NGOs being represented (or people being included because they are part of a certain NGO): surely Constitutional reform should be a matter of the common good, rather than being open to change by sectional interests? (It also raises the question of: which NGOs? The composition could affect the debate - how strongly, for example, should Catholic views [or religions in general] be represented, with voting rights in today's Ireland?) It would be preferable if NGOs could report to the Convention, but they would not have a vote.
Labour now support the abolition of the Seanad (the Senate). The upper house is elected by panels of outgoing Senators, incoming TDs and by local councillors, university seats, and by Taoiseach appointment (the appointments to ensure a strong government voice). Reofrm of the Seanad has been proposed many times, but has never got anywhere. Fine Gael first called for the abolition of the Seanad last year, and now Fianna Fáil and Labour have jumped on the bandwagon - so now the 3 big parties support Ireland becoming a unicameral state.
I'm not a supporter of abolishing the Seanad, despite it being in a desperate need for reform. There is a place for a legislative house that isn't purely directly elected, which can serve as a check on the whip-driven majoritarianism of the lower house, and which may have time for less party political or more expert debates (depending on how it is elected). Though that's not to say there aren't some good points to be made against having a second house, since there are dangers for duplication. It's good to see the report rejecting the idea of (partially) turning the Seanad into a specialised body for scrutinising EU law because EU law is a broad part of Irish law. This led to the report's best line - "There would be no more point in having a body dedicated to scrutinising EU laws than there would be in having one that specialised in laws passed on Wednesdays."
On relations between the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament) and the EU, the report pretty much repeated a lot of what was in the Oireachtas report on the subject last year, though with a few tweaks. Still, it's good to know that Labour is promising to implement these measures.
Some of the major changes have been highlighted in The Irish Times:
"-A 90-member convention to draft a new constitution within 12 months
-Abolition of the Seanad
-An Independent Electoral Commission [Note: several functions of this proposed body are currently split among government departments, local government, and independent bodies]
-50 per cent increase in Dáil sitting days
-System for citizens to petition Dáil
-New whistleblowers’ legislation
-An Independent Fiscal Advisory Council to undertake economic projections
-Restrictions on contributions to parties and politicians
-Spending limits on elections
-Ministers to be more accountable for decisions to parliament
-Comprehensive reform of the public service."
Labour would also call a Constitutional Convention to review the Constitution, and proposed changes would be put to referendum. The Convention would consist of 90 members - 30 politicians, 30 citizens drawn randomly as they are for juries, and 30 NGOs/academics. 30 citizens seems too small to me if they want to get a good cross-section of society, and what impact they would make would depend on how the Convention is structured - if debates are fragmented, it could be steered one way or another. I'm also not comfortable with NGOs being represented (or people being included because they are part of a certain NGO): surely Constitutional reform should be a matter of the common good, rather than being open to change by sectional interests? (It also raises the question of: which NGOs? The composition could affect the debate - how strongly, for example, should Catholic views [or religions in general] be represented, with voting rights in today's Ireland?) It would be preferable if NGOs could report to the Convention, but they would not have a vote.
Labour now support the abolition of the Seanad (the Senate). The upper house is elected by panels of outgoing Senators, incoming TDs and by local councillors, university seats, and by Taoiseach appointment (the appointments to ensure a strong government voice). Reofrm of the Seanad has been proposed many times, but has never got anywhere. Fine Gael first called for the abolition of the Seanad last year, and now Fianna Fáil and Labour have jumped on the bandwagon - so now the 3 big parties support Ireland becoming a unicameral state.
I'm not a supporter of abolishing the Seanad, despite it being in a desperate need for reform. There is a place for a legislative house that isn't purely directly elected, which can serve as a check on the whip-driven majoritarianism of the lower house, and which may have time for less party political or more expert debates (depending on how it is elected). Though that's not to say there aren't some good points to be made against having a second house, since there are dangers for duplication. It's good to see the report rejecting the idea of (partially) turning the Seanad into a specialised body for scrutinising EU law because EU law is a broad part of Irish law. This led to the report's best line - "There would be no more point in having a body dedicated to scrutinising EU laws than there would be in having one that specialised in laws passed on Wednesdays."
On relations between the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament) and the EU, the report pretty much repeated a lot of what was in the Oireachtas report on the subject last year, though with a few tweaks. Still, it's good to know that Labour is promising to implement these measures.
Friday, 7 January 2011
Ireland: Election 2011
2011 is going to be a big year in Irish politics. Fianna Fáil, the ruling centre/centre-right party (currently in coalition with the Greens and some independents) which has been the governing party in Ireland for most of its history since independence, is consistently low in the polls (14%, equal with Sinn Féin in the latest one), and appears on course for the worst result in its electoral history. The next government, which is likely to be a Fine Gael-Labour coalition (a Grand coalition), will have to steer Ireland through the recession, and implement the IMF-EU Bail-Out agreement.
However, the two parties have different approaches to the crisis (though there is common ground). Enda Kenny, the FG leader, is widely considered to be lacking in charisma, though he has shown some killer instinct when facing down a major challenge to his leadership last year. Eamonn Gilmore, the Labour leader, is the most popular leader in the country according to opinion polls, but the upswing in Labour support in the polls has waned recently (which is damaging to their hopes of an electoral breakthrough to become one of the 2 main parties). FG is thought to have the most researched and well thought-out policies (it accepts the same targets that have been set by FF, and would adjust the budget by €6 billion this year, front loading the spending cuts), while Labour, despite churning out policies recently, is open to charges that they haven't been properly considered or thought-out (Labour's adjustment would be €4.5 billion this year, putting off more pain for later).
Both talk about some renegotiation of the bail-out deal, and both talk about the need for some investment in the economy (a sign that simple austerity has been devalued over the last 2 years). If any renegotiation is to take place, it will have to include a political vision and platform beyond Ireland - they would, after all, have to convince other EU Member States to renegotiate. At the same time, there is likely to be more crisis in the Eurozone this year, and different ideas of fiscal union will remain relevant. It's important that we know exactly what each party's stance on the Eurozone is, not just for Ireland's short term advantage, but for the effective running of the currency zone well into the future.
Debates about political and constitutional reform are very prominent and appear to be high up on the various parties' agenda, so if these plans are realised, then it could be a further great shift in the landscape of Irish politics.
In October, there will also be a presidential election - the first in 14 years.* It's a ceremonial office, but it could turn out to be a hard-fought race.
So I've decided that I'll try to cover some aspects of the elections - especially the European aspects. Doubtless there'll be plenty of blogs in the Irish blogosphere doing a better job than me (I'll still be writing about EU politics!), but politics in the Eurozone will be more important than ever this year, and the Irish elections are a good way to look at some of the arguments through both the national and European lenses. The post tag I'll use is "Ireland 2011".
* The presidential term is 7 years, and as nobody could get enough support to be nominated to run against Mary McAleese after her first term, she was automatically re-elected. Between Mary McAleese and Mary Robinson, Ireland has had a female head of state for the last 20 years.
However, the two parties have different approaches to the crisis (though there is common ground). Enda Kenny, the FG leader, is widely considered to be lacking in charisma, though he has shown some killer instinct when facing down a major challenge to his leadership last year. Eamonn Gilmore, the Labour leader, is the most popular leader in the country according to opinion polls, but the upswing in Labour support in the polls has waned recently (which is damaging to their hopes of an electoral breakthrough to become one of the 2 main parties). FG is thought to have the most researched and well thought-out policies (it accepts the same targets that have been set by FF, and would adjust the budget by €6 billion this year, front loading the spending cuts), while Labour, despite churning out policies recently, is open to charges that they haven't been properly considered or thought-out (Labour's adjustment would be €4.5 billion this year, putting off more pain for later).
Both talk about some renegotiation of the bail-out deal, and both talk about the need for some investment in the economy (a sign that simple austerity has been devalued over the last 2 years). If any renegotiation is to take place, it will have to include a political vision and platform beyond Ireland - they would, after all, have to convince other EU Member States to renegotiate. At the same time, there is likely to be more crisis in the Eurozone this year, and different ideas of fiscal union will remain relevant. It's important that we know exactly what each party's stance on the Eurozone is, not just for Ireland's short term advantage, but for the effective running of the currency zone well into the future.
Debates about political and constitutional reform are very prominent and appear to be high up on the various parties' agenda, so if these plans are realised, then it could be a further great shift in the landscape of Irish politics.
In October, there will also be a presidential election - the first in 14 years.* It's a ceremonial office, but it could turn out to be a hard-fought race.
So I've decided that I'll try to cover some aspects of the elections - especially the European aspects. Doubtless there'll be plenty of blogs in the Irish blogosphere doing a better job than me (I'll still be writing about EU politics!), but politics in the Eurozone will be more important than ever this year, and the Irish elections are a good way to look at some of the arguments through both the national and European lenses. The post tag I'll use is "Ireland 2011".
* The presidential term is 7 years, and as nobody could get enough support to be nominated to run against Mary McAleese after her first term, she was automatically re-elected. Between Mary McAleese and Mary Robinson, Ireland has had a female head of state for the last 20 years.
Thursday, 30 December 2010
Fine Gael lacking courage and conviction in the Irish Abortion Debate
In my last post I wrote about the latest ECHR judgment concerning abortion - A, B and C v Ireland. On Tuesday the leader of the largest opposition party, Enda Kenny of Fine Gael, said that the issue was for an all-party committee to investigate, and would not commit to a referendum on the matter:
This is clearly a cop-out. It is understandable that the focus of FG in government would be the economic situation, but it's clear that FG don't know how to approach the matter at all. It's s clear example of the reluctance of the Irish political parties to think about these matters, never mind have a position on them.
The A, B, and C judgment basically said that Irish law did not ensure adequate access of women in Ireland to abortion where Irish law stated that they were entitled to it. The judgment quoted from reports, and it is clear that there have been research into this area before, and on a continuous basis. So if Kenny didn't want to draw attention to abortion as a devisive issue, he could have just stated that, said that a FG-led government would bring the law into line with the Constitution and the ECHR ruling.
The statement might be a result of tensions within the party (which is centre-right). Conservatives may want to retain strict abortion laws, while more liberal members may want to adopt more liberal abortion laws. From the Irish Times article it appears that Kenny wants abortion to be available where the mother's health would be affected, even if not on demand (currently it's only available if the mother's life is in danger). That would require a referendum.
There are 3 options:
1. Keep things the way they are, but make access to abortion were it's already permitted under the law more accessable in practical terms (the A, B and C line).
2. Have abortion were the mother health is in danger (also in cases of rape/incest/etc.).
3. Permit abortion on demand.
2 & 3 would require a constitutional amendment (which would have to be passed by referendum). In those cases you advocate a position and stick to it: the nitty-gritty of legislative work comes afterwards, when it permitted under the Constitution. The fundamental argument is political, and if the political parties cannot face up to taking a principled stand from wherever they stand on the political spectrum, it's a craven act of political cowardice.
"Mr Kenny said abortion had been a very divisive issue in Ireland in the past and a re-run of those debates was not what the country needed right now.
[...]
“We had the X case way back in the 1990s and the European Court of Human Rights has given its decision now. This judgment required proper analysis and some in-depth discussion. What I would propose is that the next Oireachtas should establish a process to look at the core issues here. I am not going to shirk the issue but I am not going to predetermine what the outcome will be.”
[...]
“In this case, my view is that we should set up an appropriate all-party committee with terms of reference that would allow it to have access to the best legal advice, to the best medical advice . . . what should be done might range across a spectrum, from legislation to a list of State recommendations or regulations that the medical profession could adhere to and operate within,” he says.
“My position is I do not favour legalising abortion on demand. We have a situation where you have difficult, hard cases, and some people have gone through very difficult circumstances but there is an ECHR judgment, there is a Supreme Court decision and there is a constitutional position. If the next Oireachtas is to respond, it has got to determine what the facts are, the scale of the problem and the nature of it and see if we can arrive at a consensus on how to deal with it.”"
This is clearly a cop-out. It is understandable that the focus of FG in government would be the economic situation, but it's clear that FG don't know how to approach the matter at all. It's s clear example of the reluctance of the Irish political parties to think about these matters, never mind have a position on them.
The A, B, and C judgment basically said that Irish law did not ensure adequate access of women in Ireland to abortion where Irish law stated that they were entitled to it. The judgment quoted from reports, and it is clear that there have been research into this area before, and on a continuous basis. So if Kenny didn't want to draw attention to abortion as a devisive issue, he could have just stated that, said that a FG-led government would bring the law into line with the Constitution and the ECHR ruling.
The statement might be a result of tensions within the party (which is centre-right). Conservatives may want to retain strict abortion laws, while more liberal members may want to adopt more liberal abortion laws. From the Irish Times article it appears that Kenny wants abortion to be available where the mother's health would be affected, even if not on demand (currently it's only available if the mother's life is in danger). That would require a referendum.
There are 3 options:
1. Keep things the way they are, but make access to abortion were it's already permitted under the law more accessable in practical terms (the A, B and C line).
2. Have abortion were the mother health is in danger (also in cases of rape/incest/etc.).
3. Permit abortion on demand.
2 & 3 would require a constitutional amendment (which would have to be passed by referendum). In those cases you advocate a position and stick to it: the nitty-gritty of legislative work comes afterwards, when it permitted under the Constitution. The fundamental argument is political, and if the political parties cannot face up to taking a principled stand from wherever they stand on the political spectrum, it's a craven act of political cowardice.
Monday, 9 March 2009
Neutrality and Europe
Ireland, Sweden and Austria are all both neutral and EU member states: but can you really be both, and what is the value of policies of neutrality and alternative foreign policies? (My main focus will be on Ireland, since I'm more familiar with its policy goals).
Neutrality is a very value-driven foreign policy, and there are several reasons why states become neutral; most of these are tied up in history and identity as well as in the national interest. In Ireland a policy of neutrality underlines the independence of the state, running on the 1940s logic that the ability to stay clear of great power wars was a mark of sovereignty. In Austria, neutrality was necessary to ensure the country's freedom and sovereignty in the middle of Cold War Europe.
Both these policies were the best policies for their time: Ireland, having just been through a war of independence, a civil war, and a trade war, was in no position to enter a world war - especially if it meant opening Ireland to the British military when the conflict of the last 20 years had been about getting them out in the first place. Internal stability and external independence depended on neutrality (and on Ireland being lucky in the course of the war). For Austria, preventing the division of the country between east and west in the same manner as Germany depended on constitutional guarantees that the Second Austrian Republic would be a neutral state.
But, for Ireland at least, neutrality wasn't meant to be permanent; it was just wartime policy. Post-War Ireland tried to ally itself with America, but America turned Ireland down: it was either the NATO alliance or no alliance. Since joining NATO would mean recognising British sovereignty over Northern Ireland, the republic decided not to join.
So what does the EU mean for neutrality, and what does the EU mean for the calculation of national interests when it comes to neutrality?
Under the NATO umbrella, the EU has created a zone of peace, so Europe is not split between 2 antagonistic blocs. This doesn't mean that there's no value in being neutral, but it does change the calculation: the policy goals of neutral states can be more effectively achieved through cooperation with fellow European states without the risks that come with associating with an alliance bloc in tense international circumstance. For Ireland, the main foreign policy goals, apart from a general policy of trying to prevent conflict through the UN and other international organisations, is non-proliferation, disarmament of inhumane weapons (e.g. cluster mines), and conflict resolution through international peacekeeping mission. (Leaving aside the goal of eventual reunification).
The EU, and the interconnectedness with other European states, can be an important factor in all of these aims, and in getting them more widely recognised and more effective action taken on a regional and global level.
The internal market also means that member states share, directly, the same interests in several fields. The free movement of people means that immigration is a shared issue, even for non-Schengen states. Connected to this is the stability and prosperity of the countries neighbouring the EU. Immediately there is a need for a common approach to development aid, trading policy (which is common in any case in the EU), as well as the need for a more political foreign policy voice in the region: whenever trouble breaks out, we are affected; US policy in the region therefore also has an affect on us. The best way of ensuring an effective policy is to have a common policy. Ireland has been involved in helping promote stability in the region along with other European states, particularly in the EUFor in Chad. Energy issues and environmental issue are also areas which require a high degree of coordination.
These goals do not require the sort of militarisation of the EU in the way a lot of neutrality supporters in Ireland fear. See some good defences of the foreign policy role of the EU here and the EDA here.
In this context, the question of whether a neutral or non-aligned or even an allied stance would be the best for pursuing both national and common interests should be asked. Some neutral supporters have (successfully) tried to frame the argument by portraying the choice as one between neutrality (of which Ireland's is in any case doubtful - it even has its own wikipedia page and an almost separate definition from classical neutrality) and a militaristic super-state (possibly practicing conscription). Ignoring the fact that many European states are phasing or have phased out conscription, why should the debate in Ireland, and possibly in the other neutral European states this is similar, be limited to these 2 choices?
In my opinion, the existence of the internal market and membership of the EU has changed the political context for neutral European states. This doesn't automatically mean that military integration should be adopted, but a range of options should be discussed. Still, integration to some degree of foreign policy can provide some clear advantages. Of course, it will never be a simple calculation of interest; the politics of identity will mean that any discussion of foreign policy in neutral states will be fraught with emotional arguments.
Note: Fine Gael is the only Irish party that has a policy of cooperation in a European defence policy.
Neutrality is a very value-driven foreign policy, and there are several reasons why states become neutral; most of these are tied up in history and identity as well as in the national interest. In Ireland a policy of neutrality underlines the independence of the state, running on the 1940s logic that the ability to stay clear of great power wars was a mark of sovereignty. In Austria, neutrality was necessary to ensure the country's freedom and sovereignty in the middle of Cold War Europe.
Both these policies were the best policies for their time: Ireland, having just been through a war of independence, a civil war, and a trade war, was in no position to enter a world war - especially if it meant opening Ireland to the British military when the conflict of the last 20 years had been about getting them out in the first place. Internal stability and external independence depended on neutrality (and on Ireland being lucky in the course of the war). For Austria, preventing the division of the country between east and west in the same manner as Germany depended on constitutional guarantees that the Second Austrian Republic would be a neutral state.
But, for Ireland at least, neutrality wasn't meant to be permanent; it was just wartime policy. Post-War Ireland tried to ally itself with America, but America turned Ireland down: it was either the NATO alliance or no alliance. Since joining NATO would mean recognising British sovereignty over Northern Ireland, the republic decided not to join.
So what does the EU mean for neutrality, and what does the EU mean for the calculation of national interests when it comes to neutrality?
Under the NATO umbrella, the EU has created a zone of peace, so Europe is not split between 2 antagonistic blocs. This doesn't mean that there's no value in being neutral, but it does change the calculation: the policy goals of neutral states can be more effectively achieved through cooperation with fellow European states without the risks that come with associating with an alliance bloc in tense international circumstance. For Ireland, the main foreign policy goals, apart from a general policy of trying to prevent conflict through the UN and other international organisations, is non-proliferation, disarmament of inhumane weapons (e.g. cluster mines), and conflict resolution through international peacekeeping mission. (Leaving aside the goal of eventual reunification).
The EU, and the interconnectedness with other European states, can be an important factor in all of these aims, and in getting them more widely recognised and more effective action taken on a regional and global level.
The internal market also means that member states share, directly, the same interests in several fields. The free movement of people means that immigration is a shared issue, even for non-Schengen states. Connected to this is the stability and prosperity of the countries neighbouring the EU. Immediately there is a need for a common approach to development aid, trading policy (which is common in any case in the EU), as well as the need for a more political foreign policy voice in the region: whenever trouble breaks out, we are affected; US policy in the region therefore also has an affect on us. The best way of ensuring an effective policy is to have a common policy. Ireland has been involved in helping promote stability in the region along with other European states, particularly in the EUFor in Chad. Energy issues and environmental issue are also areas which require a high degree of coordination.
These goals do not require the sort of militarisation of the EU in the way a lot of neutrality supporters in Ireland fear. See some good defences of the foreign policy role of the EU here and the EDA here.
In this context, the question of whether a neutral or non-aligned or even an allied stance would be the best for pursuing both national and common interests should be asked. Some neutral supporters have (successfully) tried to frame the argument by portraying the choice as one between neutrality (of which Ireland's is in any case doubtful - it even has its own wikipedia page and an almost separate definition from classical neutrality) and a militaristic super-state (possibly practicing conscription). Ignoring the fact that many European states are phasing or have phased out conscription, why should the debate in Ireland, and possibly in the other neutral European states this is similar, be limited to these 2 choices?
In my opinion, the existence of the internal market and membership of the EU has changed the political context for neutral European states. This doesn't automatically mean that military integration should be adopted, but a range of options should be discussed. Still, integration to some degree of foreign policy can provide some clear advantages. Of course, it will never be a simple calculation of interest; the politics of identity will mean that any discussion of foreign policy in neutral states will be fraught with emotional arguments.
Note: Fine Gael is the only Irish party that has a policy of cooperation in a European defence policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)