Faith schools, Groups and Plurality

BY CC Jeremy Vandel.

Tony Blair's argument for faith schools in The Irish Times yesterday was odd: "Faith schools can help bridge gaps in divided communities". Blair was quick to counter the obvious arguments against faith schools from the situation in Northern Ireland:

"Whenever the topic of faith schools came up it would not be long before Northern Ireland was mentioned. Weren’t the roots of the Troubles down to the children of different faiths being separated in different schools? There was even a claim from those who were adamant that the conflict “wasn’t really to do with religion”. Strange how many people behaved as if it was.

Schooling can divide communities. Think of the pivotal role of schools in desegregation in the US. That much of the argument is valid. But it is not the religious tradition, prioritised in affiliation of staff and students, that matters, but how each tradition is interpreted in the teaching and the life of the school.

Does it instil respect and understanding, an open mind, open to inquiry, at ease with diversity, ready to learn more about other faiths? Or does it create a closed mind, a mindset vulnerable to fear, distrust and coercion, a world where “error has no rights”? In short is it good religion or bad religion?"

Growing up in Northern Ireland, the vast majority of schools were connected with one (Christian) faith or the other - and there is often division on gender lines as well as religious ones. Together with academic selection, there's a lot of different schools in Northern Ireland, and simply not the population numbers or resources to fund it all. One thing we don't lack is division, so how can faith schools bridge these gaps?

"[On schools in Ballycastle]

On one side of the bridge lay the Cross and Passion, a Catholic school; on the other Ballycastle High, a mainly Protestant school.

Led by two outstanding religious education teachers the two schools tentatively began to get together in the late 1960s on a very informal basis. In the 1990s, through “Curriculum 2000” it became a much more formal and structured process.

Through the shared education programme funding, the collaboration has expanded beyond post-16-year-old students to include younger pupils studying for their GCSE exams. They now have a joint school choir and rugby team."

Hmm... So it was in coming together - working together, or singing together, or playing sports together - that they built bridges and overcame divisions? Well why not skip the expensive and time-consuming process of dividing people in the first place, and have them in secular integrated schools from the start?

"Many of our secular schools offer the same skills [from earlier: "instil[ing] respect and understanding, an open mind, open to inquiry, at ease with diversity, ready to learn more about other faiths?"], though I sometimes think they have a more difficult task. The gift is to help young people escape from what the American philosopher Martha Nussbaum, writing about “the new religious intolerance” – intolerance of religion – recently dubbed a world of “whatever”." (I personally would have associated "whatever" with indifference and not intolerance, but whatever...).

This is a confused piece. Cooperation between faith schools is a good thing, particularly in places like Northern Ireland where politics has made interfaith tolerance a sensitive issue, and where there is a stronger political impulse to preserve the identities of separate communities using separate institutions as far as possible. It can be difficult to overcome these divisions, and shorter-term methods of building up confidence and respect such as through cross-community or interfaith cooperation are a good thing.

It's a different matter to suggest promoting faith schools where there isn't the same level of historical and inter-community conflict, and to propose faith schools, and cooperation between faith schools, as a way of building bridges between communities. Apart from the fact that the model would encourage sharper division into group identities that may not have existed if people hadn't have been sorted into different schools, it's a mistaken approach to plurality to simply see it simply as a collection of co-existing strong groups. Real pluralism is a patchwork of groups and individuals, with many individuals caught in the overlap. Membership of a group in a pluralist society should not be something that either defines you - and being sorted into schools based on a religious or cultural group identity is a pretty strong way of defining someone early on in life.

This is not to say that group identity shouldn't be accommodated in society: it should. It is more a mark of the respect, tolerance and understanding a society has between groups in society the more they can accommodate each other in a shared space, rather than shutting each other away. Ideally we should not need faith schools to build bridges between us, but would have a common public space where we all interact as a part of life.

I am also uncomfortable with the way this brings religion closer to the state. Blair was at pains to distinguish between "good" and "bad" religion, but conferring resources and privileges equally among religious groups is not only a misguided way of looking at religious freedom, but it also draws them closer in to the state. The state has to decide what religion is deserving of resources (presumably based on numbers, which leads to the question of how far religious groups are encouraged to shout the loudest for resources and privileges), and also is drawn into questions on the role of religion in education. There's a difference between teaching children about different religious beliefs and educating children in a religious ethos so they respect religious beliefs. The classic case is science versus religion - what if religious beliefs conflict with teaching the scientific content of the curriculum? Tony Blair says that faith schools should abide by the curriculum, but it is hard to say on the one hand that a school may have a religious ethos, and then refuse it the freedom to teach its religious teachings, either instead of or along with the curriculum. The state should stay out of religion.

Sometimes it's more practical to foster understanding between groups by building bridges between their respective institutions - particularly in divided or post-conflict societies - but we should be working towards a pluralism that is a common public space for everyone, not a gangway of rickety bridges.

An Education in Fees

Should the English be charged more?

The huge rise in University tuition fees in the UK caused a massive political storm, and the devolved regional governments signaled that they would step in to prevent such increases locally. In Northern Ireland the plan is to stop any non-inflation related rise in fees and in Scotland University education will remain free, but this has raised concerns over NI and Scottish universities being flooded with English students hoping to escape the burden of higher student loans.

To prevent local students from being crowded out, Scotland will introduce fees for non-resident UK nationals at the same £9,000 level, and the Northern Ireland Executive is thinking of following suit. However, these fees are being challenged as a breach of the European Convention of Human Rights* for being contrary to its provisions on education and non-discrimination. It seems unlikely that the case will be sucessful - after all, Scotland has maintained free education for residents whereas English, Welsh and NI students would have to pay a fee (albeit lower than elsewhere in the UK) - but it has highlighted the issue of discrimination being able to take place within an EU Member State between its own nationals, and yet be outlawed between EU nationals.

Because while students will pay different fees depending on where they live within the UK, EU citizens from outside the UK will be able to access university education on the same basis - the same fees - as locals. Of course, it's not quite as simple as that because UK nationals will be able to draw on benefits that EU students who aren't working won't be entitled to, but the difference on fees is still significant. The political implications are huge - within the UK it will spark many debates: why should the regions with develoved governments be able to have lower fees? should the regions be able to discriminate against the English metropole? is it just that EU nationals should be treated better than part of the UK population?

On the EU question, it's a matter of the weakness of EU citizenship. EU citizenship is limited to cross-border situations, and Member States are free to decide how they grant citizenship and how they treat their own nationals. For a while, it looked like the European Court of Justice** would break down this connection between a cross-border element and relying on citizenship rights in the Zambrano case, but it categorically ruled it out shortly afterwards.

That students from elsewhere in the EU will be charged less is being called a "loophole", but it's a part of the fundamental rule of EU law of non-discrimination on the basis of nationality. The difference arises because EU citizenship rules only regulate cross-border relations, while these fees are being regulated by national and regional rules. The tuition fees debate will rumble on in the UK for some time yet, and get caught up in the wider debate of the relationship between the UK's constituent nations, and, perhaps, the EU too.


* Part of the Council of Europe, and not the EU!

** The EU Court.

First Past the Post is my last preference

Growing up in Northern Ireland has the advantage of having three easily accessable political arenas: Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the UK. So mentally hopping across borders and discussing what's going on in each area becomes almost second nature - perhaps this is why I warm so easily to the EU. The UK is preparing for a referendum on changing the voting system from First Past the Post (FPTP) to the Alternative Vote (AV).

Living in Northern Ireland,* I could vote in local, NI and Wesminster elections** which were held using the Single Transferable Vote (the same system is used for the elections in the Republic), but FPTP for Westminster elections. It's a very strange feeling going from STV elections to FPTP ones, and the abiding feeling was one of a loss of choice and power as a voter. In the Republic, attempts by the Fianna Fáil party to change the electoral system from STV to FPTP failed - the electorate saw it as an attempt to rig the system in their favour and to reduce the power of the voter. As STV is AV with more MPs per constituency, when there can only be one winner - in by-elections or for the Presidency in the Republic - AV is used.

So it's very hard to understand the political reactions of the British media (and people?) to the political changes over the last year. Coalitions? Preferential voting? "The sky is falling in!" the media seemed to cry. Today in the Guardian there's a poll saying that support for AV has fallen to 33%, with those against at 44%. It's difficult to explain how strange this seems for someone who has voted according to preference in the vast majority of the elections he's been involved in - particularly the claim that AV is complicated and voters won't understand it. Perhaps this is an Irish/STV thing?

While a system of proportional system would be better, I support AV for the following main reasons:

1. It empowers voters and shakes up safe seats. By being able to vote according to preference, suddenly the first preference doesn't have to be tactical anymore. Preferences can be expressed according to the candidate according to his/her personal ability and/or party affliation, and this means that candidates will have to represent the views of the constituency more faithfully as party membership will be less able to grant near-automatic victories in safe seats. This will encourage voter turnout. Though tactical voting will remain with the lower preferences (there's no electoral system that can eliminate tactical voting), it will free up first preferences, and many safe seats may turn out not to be as safe as once thought once voters can express their first preference free of tactical voting.

2. It enables (though doesn't guarantee - that depends on the electorate) a greater degree of control over the political parties. Parties in the UK are very broad churches - almost coalitions - and their success seems to be based on striking a balance between different wings in such a way as to appeal to the floating voters in marginal seats. By encouraging candidates to appeal to the political sentiments of their constituency more directly, gradual change can be introduced into the parties. A right-wing conservative may be sitting in a seat that would prefer a more liberal conservative, but there is little way of influencing the outcome if they absolutely do not want a Labour MP, and so vote tactically. It should be stressed that this depends on the electorate making use of the possibility, and that it would be a very gradual and indirect way of influencing the balance within parties, but it should mean that parties are a bit closer to their constituencies.


Those are the main reasons for supporting the system itself (I'm not going to be exhaustive in explaining them, or this long post will become far too long), but there are wider cultural perceptions that are attached to AV and proportional representation systems which mean that British voters are (or seem to be) against changing from FPTP.

Chief among these reasons is the fear of coalitions. Coalitions won't automatically come from AV: it cannot change the party political system so radically that there will be great fragmentation. However, coalitions aren't a bad thing that necessarily mean that voters' choices are reduced. Parties are coalitions that are hard in themselves to influence, and where there are only 2 (or 2 1/2) choices for government, it's hard to determine whether, when these parties win an election, their programmes get a near-total endorsement. What's more, the decreasing vote for the main parties means that a majority can be won on about between 36-38% (the upper reaches of which are harder to achieve nowadays) - should a single party be given such power when they don't have the support of 50% of the people? Through coalitions there is a greater chance for the voters to strengthen one party or the other and shape their relative strengths.

Again, perhaps this is a cultural perception, as in Ireland single party government is a threat - at the last election (in February), it looked like there may be enough Fine Gael support for single party government, and the electorate switched votes away from FG to ensure that there would be a coalition (in Labour speak, a "balanced government"). Ironically the most unstable government we've ever had in the Republic was a FF single party government with a large majority. Still, the ability to give preferences for candidates across parties in STV enables voters to shape the representation of the constituency and the political balance in the Dáil for coalition building. The "dream team" approach to building a government!


AV is a very moderate change to the electoral system. It won't change things radically, it's still possible (and fairly likely) to produce single party governments, and it doesn't create a proportional repersentive system. Such a moderate change won't have the hyped-up affects on British politics that the Yes campaign suggest, but it will give constituencies greater control over their MP. And that's why it's worth voting for.




* Annoyingly, if not surprisingly, the parties in NI have split along Nationalist-Unionist lines on the AV issue, though none are advocating a return to FPTP for NI...

**I'm currently living in the Netherlands, and was annoyingly too late for a postal vote.

Northern Ireland continues to Fail to implement EU law

A few months ago the big news in Northern Ireland was that a failure to properly administer CAP funds (e.g. built on land and some land not belonging to the farmers in question was claimed for) led to the Commission itself investigating the procedures of the Department of Agriculture and Regional Development, leading to a €60 million+ penalty being imposed. Now it seems that the BBC have uncovered the long-term failure of the NI Executive to implement EU legislation on protecting horse mussels. It seems that the original complaints were made 6 years ago.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the BBC obtained 24 months worth of documents, which show how anxious the civil service was that the lack of progress in protecting the horse mussels would be uncovered, yet nothing was done.

"Even as late as June last year, six years after the initial complaint was made, one civil servant warned: "If the Commission asks what progress has been made... the departments will be exposed"."

It wasn't as if the Agriculture and Environment Ministries - and Ministers - didn't know that something had to be done about this: in January 2009 the ministers jointly proposed action, and that exclusion zones would be set up to protect the mussels:

"In January 2009, the Environment Minister at the time, Sammy Wilson and Agriculture Minister Gildernew called a press conference at which they claimed they were riding to the aid of the horse mussels.

By then a restoration project was had begun although there were still no non-disturbance zones and today, they still don't exist.

In the last batch of emails and minutes of meetings the BBC has seen little has moved on.

The two departments are still arguing over what size the non-disturbance zones should be and where they should be, they can't even agree over whether lobster and crab fishing is damaging the mussel beds."

While it can be argued that there have been difficulties in restoring devolved government to Northern Ireland that would have delayed descisions being taken, it's hard to believe that since the St. Andrews argeement in 2007 that these decisions couldn't have been taken.

It's interesting to see how this story is being picked up. The communal blog Slugger O'Toole picked up on the story earlier this weekend, and asked whether the NI government was dysfunctional or just incompetent. The BBC focused on the issues and explained how long the situation was going on for, and what had been going on within the civil service. The main thrust is about how local government is spending - or misspending - European money and living up to its commitments under European law.

In comparison, last week BBC Newsnight covered a story on English local councils being fined for non-compliance with EU obligations, but focused on the fact that some councils would have to pay for not flying the European flag, despite being in receipt of EU money. There was then a discussion on whether the European flag should be flown more in the UK (or England, since the pointed out that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland doesn't seem to have a problem with it). Since councils were being fined money for non-compliance, I would have thought that it would be useful to focus on what areas caused the most trouble, and what problems stopped the councils from successfully carrying out legal obligations.

However, setting that aside, since the flag discussion isn't a bad idea in and of itself, looking at how the discussion was lead, it didn't seem as if the BBC knew exactly why the councils had to fly the flag. It wasn't mentioned whether it was by law or under contract that the flag had to be flown (in fact, the Belgian Ambassador on the programme said it was just contractual, rather than by a general law, as was implied). That it was contractual wasn't challenged by the presenter, but she continued to asked whether council should be forced to fly the flag by law. It seems that the lack of clarity was meant to drag out the discussion (perhaps another sign of the silly season), since I doubt that there would be much disagreement that if it's in the contract, it should be followed. While a debate on the value of European symbols could be a good one (unfortunately this debate didn't live up to that billing), I would have preferred to have seen a exposé on how European money is being (mis)spent by councils and what role the councils are playing. Surely such an angle would be more in keeping with the idealised role of the 4th estate?

Holidays and Integration in Ireland

Over the last week there has been a bit of debate over holidays and integration in Ireland. This was started when a former Tánaiste Michael McDowell suggested that it would be a good idea to make the Twelfth (of July) an official holiday in the Republic of Ireland. The Twelfth is a loyalist holiday mainly celebrated by the Orange Order, which commemorates the defeat of an English King by the Dutch Stadtholder William of Orange (hence the Orange Order). If you're wondering why the supporters of the usurping King designates themselves "loyalist" and why the nationalist Irish are let down by the defeat of the English king, well... it's mostly about religion but has since become more about nationalism. It's best not to think about it too deeply, really.

The argument for is that it will help re-integration and that it would be a good signal to the Unionist community in Northern Ireland (and those Orange Order lodges in the Republic) that they are a welcome part of the Irish tradition and the Irish nationality. Also, the Irish flag is supposed to be a symbol of reconciliation between the "Green" and "Orange" traditions in Ireland, and support has been drawn from the secular nationalist/romantics in the Irish nationalist tradition (Wolfe Tone, etc.). Plus, it'd be another holiday!

The argument against is that the Orange Order is an essentially sectarian organisation with a history of burning effigies of the Pope, etc., and that celebrating a sectarian tradition doesn't aid re-integration. The Twelfth is marked in NI by the iconic Orange marches, and these have caused unrest since the marching routes run through Catholic/nationalist areas. Also, it seems strange to celebrate an event of monarchist history in a modern republic.

Generally people seem to be against it (see the Irish Times letters page). The marching season has been undergoing a PR re-invention in recent years with the events being portrayed as "Orangefest" and European funding going to them. However, the image within Ireland remains of a fundamentally Protestant organisation that is anti-Catholic (Catholics are not allowed to become members).

It is very hard for me to imagine the Twelfth being an inclusive holiday, and the goals and nature of the Orange Order mean that it's difficult to find a place for it in a modern secular(ising?) republic. There could be a place for it in the future if it's "modernisation" attempts achieve some success, but I don't think it's anywhere near "detoxified" enough to be an inclusive holiday - and the re-invention of the holiday can only come from within the Orange community; attempts to change it some outside (especially by the Irish state) are unlikely to work. But attempts of cultural integration and tolerance definitely need to be explored and promoted.

Another aspect of integration that wasn't explored during the debate is the great changes in Irish society over the last decade. Ireland is, despite the recession, much more open and European than ever before, and these trends are likely to continue, regardless of the pace of institutional European integration. There has been lots of immigration from Eastern Europe, and from elsewhere, and integration has been celebrated to some degree during the last St. Patrick's Day parade(s). But we do have a Europe Day that we're not making use of; one that would be perfect to celebrate the cultural diversity of modern Ireland, and a perfect way to have fun with festivals and promote connections between communities. It's strange that we're not making use of it.

Opening Up My Euroblogging: Language and Linking

I've been inspired by Mathew Lowry and Ralf Grahn to open up my Euroblogging and to try and reach out a bit more across the blogosphere(s).

The debate on the French Euroblogosphere (see Europasionaria) prompted Grahnlaw to introduce a policy on languages and comments on his blog - Ralf wants to promote greater connections by having a greater number of "commenting" languages available. Cracking open the linguistic barriers is one of the greatest obstacles to growing and connecting the Euroblogosphere and it's a great initiative to have to start welcoming more comments and debate in different languages. So I'm going to do the same for my blog. My linguistic ability only really extends to German (with a smattering of very, very basic French), so I will also rely on machine translation to help with responding.

Another side to this is commenting on other Euroblogs in different languages. Machine translation will be my (contrary) companion here, as the German Euroblogosphere seems to be very small. I'm not sure how bloggers will react to having strangely worded comments marring their blogs, but I'll try and bluster my way through. I have been following some non-English Euroblogs, though the number is quite small - hopefully by diving deeper across linguistic barriers will unearth some blogging treasures.

Finally, I need to start reaching out across national barriers (the second great divide that afflicts the Euroblogosphere). Earlier this week I wrote a mini-series on the Northern Irish MEPs, and I tried to make it neutral (given the divide in NI) and I tried to provide a context for those who aren't as familiar with the European Parliament. As far as I can tell, no Northern Ireland-based blogger picked up on what I wrote. Now this is fair enough - my writing style is a bit drawn-out and slightly academic (tips on how to blog better are welcome in the comments, by the way) - but there is no real debate on the NI MEPs in the NI blogosphere between elections, as far as I can tell.

This post is mainly about me trying to push myself to blog better and to cross barriers that I haven't found the time to in the past (I find blogging time-consuming, and comments take up time = particularly if you want to comment on several blogs). I haven't commented on NI, Irish and UK blogs that much, so I haven't been developing those relations between the blogospheres. It can be hard to know when to "speak", in that Europolitics rarely crops up in the NI blogosphere (though I've undoubtedly missed opportunities). So the lesson for me is: make more comments.

Mathew Lowry's post on making bridges and specialist bloggers in the Euroblogosphere makes me think there are 3 things the Euroblogosphere needs to do:

1. Grow! Bloggingportal.eu is up to 630 Euroblogs, so the Euroblogosphere is already growing quickly. New Eurobloggers are needed to replace those, like Julian Frisch, who have dropped out. A bigger Euroblogosphere will be better placed to make the connections between languages and national Blogospheres and support and encourage the growth of specialist Eurobloggers.

2. Reach out between linguistic barriers by commenting. This will help broaden debate and increase the impact of everyone's posts - after all, on European topics, if they're interesting, they deserve to be discussed across the Euroblogosphere.

3. Reach out across national Blogosphere lines (in my case, NI, Ireland and the UK). This will widen the debates and increase the influence of Euroblogging (and hopefully spur a greater interest in European politics (both in itself and in holding MEPs, etc. to account).

It may be a bad time for me to commit to this (I'll be a bit quite over the next few weeks), but I'll try to work at it and make it part of my routine.

And apologies to everyone who doesn't blog (but you should try(!)) and is a bit tired of the self-referential Euroblogging of the past few weeks!

Northern Ireland MEPs in the Wider European Parliament

My posts on the Northern Ireland MEPs' first year in the 7th European Parliament mostly focused on highlighting what their priorities/key policy areas are with a bit of analysis (mostly a loose comparison between their performance and the "models" of the Independent and Party MEPs). However, as Grahnlaw has highlighted, the 3 NI MEPs belong either to no Europarty or to one of the smaller ones, which affects their influence and the work they do:

"Besides influence in the political group and EP bodies, the drafting of committee reports (and opinions to other committees) would in my view constitute a crucial element when evaluating the influence of an MEP. There are huge differences in importance between reports, so here qualitative analysis is called for, and it is feasible due to the low number of significant reports and opinions drafted even by a well respected and connected MEP."

So I thought I should provide a bit of wider context about the European Parliament that our MEPs are working in and how that affects their roles.

Currently the EP is centre-right leaning (the centre-right won the Euro elections before as well):

European People's Party (Centre-Right Christan Democrats/conservatives) - 265 MEPs
Socialists and Democrats (the biggest centre-left party) - 184 MEPs
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (centrist) - 85 MEPs
European Greens (plus regionalists and the Pirate Party) - 55 MEPs
European Conservatives and Reformists (the Tory party's new EP grouping & party of James Nicholson) - 54 MEPs
European United Left - Nordic Green Left (far-left & Bairbre de Brún's party) - 35 MEPs
Europe of Freedom and Democracy (far right/nationalists) - 31 MEPs
Non-Aligned (Diane Dodds is in this group) - 27 MEPs

(Total: 736 MEPs - though this could be soon increased to bring it more into line with the Lisbon Treaty amendments of 751 MEPs)

None of the NI MEPs belong to the big 3: the EPP, S&D and the Liberals (ALDE), or even the 4th biggest, the Greens. James Nicholson belongs to the 5th biggest (or 3rd smallest) and Bairbre de Brún belongs to the 6th biggest (or 2nd smallest). The number and size of the parties gives an immediate impression of how hard it would be for an independent to get elected to a prominent Parliamentary position or to get an amendment passed, as the Europarties maneuver for influence (which is why I defined the Independent and Party MEPs as I did).

Belonging to the big parties has some advantage in that MEPs can try to influence the negotiating positions of the big players. And the European Parliament is increasingly important, so it does matter - for example, the EPP proposed Barroso for re-election as Commission President. Barroso was re-elected Commission President by the EP because the EPP won the election (though I don't think there were any EPP parties running for election in the NI or the rest of the UK when the Tories and UUP pulled out of the EPP). This was also partly due to the disarray of the S&D group, who couldn't agree on a candidate.

However, as the Commission is separate from the Parliament, the Parliament works more like a multi-party version of the US House of Representatives than the UK or Irish Parliaments as it's not controlled by the executive. So the parties generally make issue-to-issue coalitions. This means that the ECR isn't necessarily a key player in a pro-government coalition that can influence policy outcomes, so it can be outmaneuvered by the big 3. Indeed, that's what the VoteWatch.eu report on the EP's first 6 months has shown: there tends to be a centre-left winning bloc on civil rights (ALDE + S&D) and a centre-right one on the economy (EPP + ALDE). The ECR hasn't been a big part of winning centre-right coalitions, but has been left out of the loop a lot - indeed the EPP hasn't been on the winning side as often as its dominance would suggest. Perhaps this will change as the term continues if the EPP and ECR draw closer together.

As there's a hierarchy of parties, the bigger parties can get their MEPs on the important rapporteur-ing jobs, etc. Now I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with voting for the smaller parties or for independents - they play a role too, and you should vote for the party you want to strengthen in Parliament or the person you want to represent you - but we should be aware that the political battle-lines in Northern Ireland do not necessarily translate into the outcome we want in the European Parliament. If we don't discuss the question of Europarties at the Euro elections, then the election debate looses a lot of its potential value - and we have to ask if we're really making the most of our vote in that situation.

Lack of discussion of Europarties during the elections is widespread throughout the EU, but Northern Ireland is a rare example of a constituency that only returned MEPs that didn't belong to any of the main parties. I'd urge people to check up on their MEP (VoteWatch.eu is a very handy tool for this), and other bloggers and Eurobloggers to check up on and write about their MEPs.

The MEPs' profiles on the Parliament website give links to the speeches, etc., that each MEP has made. I read through these for the NI MEP series (speeches in the EP are generally set at about 1-1.5 minutes long), but for other MEPs in the bigger parties, the rapporteur drafts and Committee work could/should be bigger and provide better meat for investigation. Further into the term there should be more information for a better qualitative analysis.

Northern Ireland's MEPs: One Year On

The 7th European Parliament is a year into its first term since the June 2009 elections, so I’ve decided to take a look at the performance of the 3 Northern Ireland MEPs in the European Parliament over the last year. To do this I’ve looked over the questions and speeches of the MEPs from their plenary adventures on the European Parliament website, and the statistics of their voting patterns and parliamentary work from VoteWatch.eu. The articles on the 3 MEPs are summaries with analysis at the end, so this post will be an overview and contents page for the series.

The “reviews” of the MEPs are supposed to be neutral, and I try to summarise what the focus of each MEP’s work is and some of their general stances and look at the number of questions. All 3 MEPs had submitted under 10 written/oral questions to the Commission that were answered later (or are awaiting an answer). This is in line with MEPs in general: the vast majority seem to have asked 10 questions or less so far (with a few asking a lot more). Since they’re so close in the number of questions, I’ve looked at the “quality” of the questions (how specific they are) and, when assessing them in general, whether they are “party” or “independent” MEPs.

The model of “party” and “independent” MEP is generally:

- Party MEP: an MEP who is part of a Europarty group in the EP. Relevant to this role is how often they vote along with the party (since it shows how far voting for this MEP in elections is voting for that party and their policies/ideological leanings). Party MEPs would have more resources and are likely to be more specialised (focusing on a certain policy) and might depend on other MEPs in the group to deal with other policy areas. Party MEPs would be expected to be more likely to be spokespeople for their parties on issues and/or rapporteurs for the Parliament for a legislative proposal. (A rapporteur writes a report on the legislation and conducts negotiations between the parties to find an acceptable final package to put to the vote). In short: higher profiles and (assumed) greater influence but with less independence.

- Independent MEP: an MEP that doesn’t have the resources of the MEP as they sit outside the party groups. Assumed to be a more “generalist” MEP with time to focus on issues important to the constituency. So less rapporteuring, etc., and more time for asking questions and making speeches.

Nicholson (ECR/UCU-NF) and de Brún (GUE-NGL/Sinn Féin) are party MEPs and Dodds (No Group/DUP) is an independent MEP.

I’ve decided not to pass judgment on the low number of questions in this series – the general aim of the series is to give a loose assessment to show what the MEPs are doing (and give some criticism). This should show what policies they’re focusing on (because the EP does have power and it does do something!), and then you can decide how they’re doing and if you want to test them out for yourself with questions and constituency work. It should be noted that the info this is based on doesn't detail constituency work, so a lot of important contact with constituents isn't included. Nicholson and de Brún get a general “thumbs up” while I would question heavily the value and number of the questions Dodds has submitted.

Running through it is the theme of “independent” versus “party” MEP. I think that in a chamber of 700+ MEPs, having a party and connections is vital to get things done and influence legislation – not to mention providing some form of meaningful choice to the voter. That said, there are always arguments for and against.

James Nicholson (European Conservatives and Reformists/UCU-NF)
Bairbre de Brún (United Left [GUE-NGL]/Sinn Féin)
Diane Dodds (Non Aligned/DUP)

UPDATE: I've added another post to the series, this time looking at the wider context of the European Parliament, and why the bigger parties matter more.

P.S. VoteWatch.eu recently did a study on how the Europarties voted over the first 6 months of the Parliament. I’ve blogged about it here.

Diane Dodds MEP: One Year On

[Part of the series on Northern Irish MEPs' first year in the 7th European Parliament]

Diane Dodds (NI) (DUP). Member of: the Agriculture Committee and the Delegation for Relations with Israel (Substitute on: the Fisheries Committee and the Delegation for Relations with Australia and New Zealand).

Statistics (VoteWatch Profile):
Attendance in plenary: 87.27%
Loyalty to Europarty: N/A
Loyalty to national majority: 46.15%
Speeches: 54 (In plenary, 49 [via VoteWatch, which wasn’t updated as recently])
Parliamentary Questions: 5
Motions for resolutions: 0
Written declarations: 0
Reports Amended: 5 (3 on the Future of the CAP after 2013 and 2 on the Draft Report on the Green Paper on the Reform of the CFP)
Drafted Reports: 0
Opinions: 0


Dodds’ speeches mostly refer to agriculture. According to these speeches, she supports a localist approach (speech on the amendment to regulations on agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union, and supporting local rather than EU geographical indicators when it comes to labelling ). She also raised the issue of the penalties against Northern Irish farmers due to allegations of fraudulent claims with Commission President Barroso during the Question Hour, and Barroso defended the procedure as objective, highlighting that the member state has space to present its case (though the matter is really one of the regional Northern Irish government). When it comes to the Common Fisheries Policy, she made a speech in favour of its regionalisation as set out in the Green Paper on CFP reform – however her ideal would be for the scrapping of the CFP and a return to member state control. From her speech on Icelandic accession to the Union, however, she seems to feel that Icelandic fishery policies on mackerel are unsustainable and that letting Iceland into the EU would damage UK fisheries; she opposes Icelandic entry on the basis of fisheries and the Icesave crisis.

Diane Dodds has also made speeches on the Israel/Palestine conflict and on terrorism in NI. She seems very supportive of security services, technology and intelligence: see here for her speech on body scanners at airports. She also voted for the EU-US SWIFT agreement (on the sharing of bank transfer info for terrorist investigations).

The 5 Parliamentary questions generally follow the same trend as the speeches. (4 of them were submitted on the 2nd July 2010, with the other one submitted back in December 2009, judging by the European Parliament website). Topics include: the EU-Libya cooperation agreement negotiations, the volatile diary market, the right to fish, and discrimination against producers and processors. Apart from the 2 questions asking for an update on how negotiations with Libya are going, the other questions concern work and discrimination of products; two of these ask for clarification on if/when discrimination is allowed (the producers and diary questions – though the questions are short and don’t provide a background or context so it’s unclear exactly what circumstances Dodds is asking questions about).

Only one question refers to a specific law (rather than just asking what the law is). This question asks whether restrictions on fishing conflict with the rights to find an occupation and engage in work in the Fundamental Charter of Rights.

In general the main focus of Dodds’ speeches are agriculture, fisheries and security/terrorism, which fits in with the rural character of Northern Ireland and the DUP’s general stance on security issues. If you want to check out her speeches and stances in more detail, you can find them here. You can check her voting record here.


Analysis:

Diane Dodds’ national party, the Democratic Unionist Party, isn’t aligned with any of the Europarty/political groupings in the European Parliament. Groups get certain resources and being part of a political group increases your chances of forming alliances and getting high profile roles such as rapporteur, etc. So in some ways the role of an independent MEP can’t be compared easily to that of a party MEP: party MEPs gain profile, political advantage and political leverage by influencing their party’s position and working to get more influential posts; while independents may be more constituency focused and focus on a wider range of issues based on their constituents’ interests. Party MEPs may be more specialised and become a party’s spokesperson in a policy area (and so depend on other party MEPs to defend their common interests in other policy areas and ask questions/table amendments there), while an independent might not have the time or resources to be experts on everything, but have the time (and freedom from the party line) to work on constituency concerns more directly.

In my opinion, the role of an independent MEP is to ask questions, make speeches, and table amendments on a wide range of issues that matter to the constituency – and can’t be blamed necessarily for the lack of report drafting, etc. Dodds has made a lot of speeches in the key areas of interest for the constituency, but there are few questions and amendments, considering that there is no Europarty work and my “model” of an independent MEP. Do the questions and amendments serve her constituents well? I doubt it. Questions are few and vague, and I doubt that they’ll get much more than a copy-and-paste reply of the general law in that area. Questions would need to be direct and specific to tease out a good reply; otherwise it seems as if she is just asking the Commission’s opinion to a question a constituent might have asked so she can pass the answer on. The statistics don’t show or measure other constituency work, however, so there could be other areas of local work that just aren’t highlighted by this.


How you judge Diane Dodds’ performance as an MEP may depend on how you view the role – as one of making speeches on matters important to the constituency, constituency work, asking questions or submitting amendments, and what combination you think is important. Apart from the question of ideology is also the question of party alignment: do you think an independent or a party-aligned MEP would be better? The European Parliament has gained new powers after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and is now equal to the Council (member states) in nearly all areas. Though the EP is no longer the talking shop it once was, Dodds seems to treat it as if nothing’s changed.


[For analysis on the other Northern Ireland MEPs and an overall analysis: link]

Bairbre de Brún MEP: One Year On

[Part of the series on the Northern Irish MEPs' first year in the 7th European Parliament]

Bairbre de Brún (GUE-HGL [United Left]) (Sinn Féin). Member of: the Environment Committee, Petitions Committee and the Delegation to the EU-Croatia Joint Parliamentary Committee. (Substitute on: the Regional Development Committee, Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council, Delegation to the Euro-Mediterranian Parliamentary Assembly).

Statistics:
Attendance in plenary: 84.31%
Loyalty to Europarty: 89.88%
Loyalty to national majority: 53.02%
Speeches: 16 (In plenary, 14 [via VoteWatch, which wasn’t updated as recently])
Parliamentary Questions: 8
Motions for resolutions: 7
Written declarations: 0
Reports Amended: 8 (Mostly regarding reports on Climate Change, transport, biodiversity, and the treatment of animals (pets)).
Drafted Reports: 1 (Report on a proposed regulation on animal health requirements for non-commercial movement of pets).
Opinions: 0

De Brún’s speeches mostly cover climate change and animal welfare. On climate change she gave a speech in January advocating a binding international treaty on climate change, and urged for 40% cuts in CO2 emissions by 2020 and of 80-95% by 2050 for the EU, as well as funding for developing countries to combat climate change/clarity on the funding. These figures appear in several speeches and she has spoken for her political group on the matter a few times. Bairbre de Brún has also given speeches on the report on regulations for animal treatment (of pets while being moved) as rapporteur. The legislation concerns the transportation of pets and controls on rabies. In the end a few technical amendments were recommended.

[NOTE: A rapporteur prepares a report on a piece of legislation for the relevant committee and helps conduct negotiates between the political groups on it. The final report contains recommendations to accept, reject or amend the legislation].

When it comes to the Irish language, which is an important issue for de Brún’s national party, Sinn Féin, she gives her speeches in Irish. She has also made a speech on the legislation (now passed) on the access to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings criticising aspects of it where the native tongue might not be used/translated into [Text in Irish, but if you click on video and scroll down the speakers, you can find a translated video speech].

On Parliamentary questions, the 8 questions are on a range of topics. Though there’s no one topic, there is a theme of the environment for a few of the questions. Topics include: Lough Neagh Eels, Genetically Modified Organisms, Foreign Lecturers in Italian Universities (equal pay question), the movement of animals in Ireland, cross-border use of childcare vouchers and the failure of certain member states to implement EU law/questions on whether or not the law was being applied correctly in a certain case. Questions are asked regularly (i.e. roughly monthly rather than a bunch of questions at once), and tend to refer to specific situations and refer to a specific law.

The motions for resolutions are mostly procedural – motions to finish the debate on an issue, etc. The other resolutions are political declarations, and not legislation, on topics such as the Gaza flotilla incident and AIDs.

The reports that de Brún submitted amendments on mostly concern reports on climate change, transport, biodiversity, and the treatment of animals. This shows a specialised role that probably leads on from her membership of the Environment Committee.


Analysis:

Bairbre de Brún’s national party, Sinn Féin, is part of the GUE-NGL group (United Left-Nordic Green Left), so you could say that she plays the role of a party MEP. Groups get certain resources and being part of a political group increases your chances of forming alliances and getting high profile roles such as rapporteur, etc. So the role of the party MEP would be different to an independent MEP. On the whole, it looks like de Brún is asking specific, detailed questions, submitting amendments and motions that are around the same amount as most other MEPs (10 or less for each, though some few MEPs submit a lot more), and drafting/co-drafting a report. She seems very specialised in the environment policy area, and how good this is depends on your idea of the role of the MEP. Specialisation suggests that she is well positioned to influence environmental EU law, and has good party connections (whether or not the party has policies you agree with in this or other areas is another question). But perhaps this means that she doesn’t have as much time for questions/amendments in other policy areas (see the above linked video on the translation legislation, where she claimed not being on a Committee that dealt with that legislation meant that she’d less time to read it and come up with amendments). Other constituency work isn’t measured – we can’t say that these statistics and info show everything an MEP does/can do. Is she doing a good job in her area? Is she doing enough?

My personal opinion on the independent/party MEP aspect is that in a Parliament of 700+ MEPs, you need alliances on policies to get things done, and having them along ideological lines means that the voter can vote for a party that represents a broad line that they can support – pretty much like any other Parliament. Of course there are other advantages and disadvantages to each role. De Brún has voted with the United Left the vast majority of the time (shown by the high “group loyalty” percentage), so voting for Bairbre de Brún as an MEP is a vote to strengthen that party in the Eruopean Parliament, and their policies/ideology can be taken as a rough guide to her political behaviour as an MEP. In my opinion, Bairbre de Brún does a good job as a party MEP.


[For analysis on the other Northern Ireland MEPs and an overall analysis: link]

James Nicholson MEP: One Year On

[Part of the series on the Northern Irish MEPs' first year in the 7th European Parliament]

James Nicholson (ECR) (UUP). Member of the Agriculture Committee, Vice-Chair of the Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly. (Substitute for the Environment Committee, Regional Development Committee, and Delegation for relations for the Korean Peninsula).

Statistics:
Attendance in plenary: 98.28%
Loyalty to Europarty: 91.58%
Loyalty to national majority: 81.14%
Speeches: 29
Parliamentary Questions: 6
Motions for resolutions: 6
Written declarations: 0
Reports Amended: 10 (Mostly on the CAP and agriculture, but also on cancer, organ donation and transport, and food information for consumers).
Drafted Reports: 0
Opinions: 0

Nicholson’s speeches mainly focus on agriculture and food security, but he has also given speeches on cancer, organ transplants and donations, animal transport, the South Korean Trade Agreement, and on CFP reform. He’s spoken on behalf of the ECR group a surprising number of times: on the debate on agriculture in non-diary sectors, the EU-South Korean Trade Agreement, on Europol (deputising for the ECR rapporteur), the regulation on agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union, and the transportation of animals (he was in this case the “opposite number” Bairbre de Brún, the rapporteur for this piece of legislation – at least for this debate).

James Nicholson’s main focus is agriculture (where he, for instance, supports country of origin logos and opposes an EU logo), and, from these speeches, supports a limited role for Europol (stressing the sovereignty of member states), considers the 2002 CFP reform a failure, and is supportive of the legislation on animal transport and the report on organ donation and transport.

The 6 Parliamentary questions cover negotiations with Mercosur, property ownership in Spain, EEC pensions, tyre pressure safety regulations and the EU strategy against organised crime. Some of the questions are oral and some are written. Some of the written questions are fairly detailed, but all seem specific – asking about the details of EEC pension payouts, impact assessments of Mercosur trade and agricultural imports, etc.

The motions for resolution are mainly to wind up the debate on a topic or used to make a political statement, e.g. on North Korea or the diary crisis. The amendments to reports are mostly agricultural, and several are for the Future of the CAP After 2013 report. There are also amendments to the reports on organs, consumers and agricultural product quality.


Analysis:

James Nicholson’s national party, the Ulster Conservatives and Unionists – New Force, is part of the European Conservatives and Reformists, so his role is that of a party MEP. Groups get certain resources and being part of a political group increases your chances of forming alliances and getting high profile roles such as rapporteur, etc. So the role of the party MEP would be different to an independent MEP. Nicholson hasn’t acted as a rapporteur in the first year of this Parliament, though he has deputised for one in plenary and he has spoken on behalf of the ECR group on several issues. The questions seem to be specific and show the concern for free trade agreements and anti-red tape stance that you might expect from the right-to-centre-right, free trade, sovereigntist-leaning ECR, and the focus on agriculture in his speeches and his position on the Agriculture Committee echoes the rural interests of the constituency. The high attendance rate and high loyalty rate with the ECR group shows that he supports the ECR Europarty – an advantage in that you can vote for him or not based on the policies/ideology of the party and that the group is a voting bloc that can form alliances (whether or not it’s very successful at that is another question). According to his website: “Due to his experience and expertise in this field, Jim was appointed as coordinator for the ECR group for this policy area at the beginning of the new legislature.” Other constituency work isn’t measured on VoteWatch.eu or put on the European Parliament website.

The number of questions and report amendments seem to both be generally 10 or under for most MEPs (though there are a few that ask a lot more). Though the number is low, it’s roughly equivalent to the performance of the rest of the MEPs. I think that Nicholson is generally doing a good job as a party MEP.


[For analysis on the other Northern Ireland MEPs and an overall analysis: link]

£60 million fine for Northern Ireland for CAP Errors

Northern Ireland gets some £300 million per year in CAP subsidy payments, but now the Executive (regional government) will be fined (or disallowed) £60 million for what seems to be a list of serious errors. The BBC has reported that claims were awarded where farmers were claiming for land that was built on (as agricultural land), ditches, and even different farmers claiming for the same piece of land.

The farmers submit claims to the Department of Agriculture, which are backed up with documentation including maps of the areas in question, and then on this basis the CAP money is given to the Department to be distributed amongst the farmers. The Agriculture minister (and my MP) Michelle Gildernew considers, it seems, that no one is really to blame. Since at least 2005 these faulty claims were being put through and these findings are obviously serious: how far did the department check up on how up-to-date the information it was provided with was? It may be hard to assign blame in many circumstances - some cases could be genuine mistakes - but farmers and the department should know about the differing values and qualities of land, and they especially should have the common sense to be able to ascertain whether or not land has been built on. From the minister's tone it doesn't seem as if she's open and willing to learn from past mistakes; hopefully she will have to anyway: after all, the department cannot risk fines in this economic climate, for it's the department and not the farmers directly who will bear the burden.

The department seems to be saying that it will push for a reduction in the fine, but last night we were treated to a very rare scene of a Commission Official explaining on local news that the fines cannot be altered by political pressure. The irregularities were discovered by Commission Officials who came in to check up on the NI situation. I wonder how seriously this will damage the Executive's voice in Europe. NI is far more rural than the rest of the UK, and has a big interest in the continuing of the CAP and seeing its interests represented in any reforms. Naturally, as a region, it's not likely that it would play a big role in discussions, but the example may provide more ammunition for those advocating more radical reforms and reductions in subsidies.

The EU has provided money to NI in the past in support of the peace process, and naturally enough the packages have decreased in size over time. It will be harder in the future for NI politicians to get a sympathetic hearing in Brussels.

Perpetual Peace Process

Northern Ireland is back in the news, and this time it's not because of sex and money. The more familiar peace process crisis has returned (though, technically, it never really went away), with the devolution of police and justice powers to the regional government in Belfast the central issue (apart from all the other issues). Once again the British Prime Minister and the Irish Taoiseach have waded in to try and sort the mess out, and, with no deal reached today, set a deadline of 48 hours for the main parties to strike a deal, or the two governments will set out their own proposals.

It's been almost 12 years since the Good Friday Agreement (or Belfast Agreement) which set up the devolved regional government in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland had its own government from 1922-72 until the outbreak of the Troubles led to London imposing direct control (known as "direct rule"). The new system is a consociational one: in other words, both communities share power. This was to ensure that the institutions would have a broad cross-community support, which was absent from the first period of regional government. But while the Assembly and Executive are seen as legitimate, they're also seen as ineffective - after all, it's been 12 years and we're still stuck in the same old process, with the same old arguments.

It's hard to explain to people who didn't grow up in NI exactly what it's all about, and every time I try it always strikes me how ridiculous the whole thing must sound.

So, here it goes with the very, very brief and crude description of the state of play [Warning: may contain traces of exasperated cynicism]:

- The government (Executive) is a coalition of four parties, but the main ones are a party of former revolutionaries/rebels (Sinn Féin) and a party of reactionary fundamentalist Christians (DUP).
- Sinn Féin wants the devolution of police and justice powers to the Executive/Assembly because it would complete the set of devolved powers, and because the whole issue of decommissioning of the IRA's weapons has been resolved.
- The DUP want other issues to be settled in the deal, including the abolition of the Parades Commission (PC).
- The PC was set up to restrict/ban contentious parades, in practice this mainly concerns the parades of the unionist Orange Order (or the "Loyal Orders", which commemorate the overthrow of an English king and the enthronement of the Dutch Staatholder William of Orange in the 17th century [I know this might not make sense, but it's best not to think about it]). Some of their parades run through nationalist areas, and have been sources of what we might politely call tension.
- Sinn Féin are angry at what they see as a precondition to any deal, and feel that they shouldn't have to make many more concessions because the DUP have blocked the introduction of an Irish Language Act and other Sinn Féin pet policies. They don't want to look weak.
- The DUP are hurting from the Robinson sex scandal and are worried about loosing support to the more extreme unionist TUV party. Want a political victory and obstructionism worked well with decommissioning.
- DUP & Sinn Féin don't really want an election, but the brinkmanship may bring it about.
- The other 2 (more moderate) parties are angry about just generally being ignored; increasingly only get publicity involving them being angry about being increasingly ignored.
- IF a deal is reached, the minister who takes up the portfolio can neither be from the DUP or SF parties because they don't trust each other and it may be the leader of the (tiny) opposition cross-community party. Maybe.

The line in Yes, Minister that government isn't so much a team as a loose confederation of warring tribes is perhaps more apt in this case.

What's so dispiriting is that politics really hasn't changed. There is still the sense that a gain for one community is a loss for the other. Both sides are guilty of this, but the DUP is unbelievably explicit and brash in its approach - in other words, the biggest party of government and the holder of the First Minister's office (which is a joint equal office with the deputy FM, despite the name) sees gloating about keeping the leading nationalist party - their government partners - down and out as "good politics". Is it any wonder that more extremist parties and groups are emerging if politics aren't being normalised? Maintaining such attitudes legitimises the extremes while the paralysis of the Executive mean that moderate voters loose faith in the purpose of government and are less likely to vote.

When decommissioning was achieved and the DUP and Sinn Féin apparently reconciled, some people thought that people would move to more moderate politics, but the weakness of the moderate parties (who refuse to leave the government and set themselves up as a separate alternative) and the ineffectiveness of the government mean that there's little oxygen for the moderates.

So the perpetual peace process trundles on, forever on life support...

NI Green Politics

My latest post over at Think2: NI Green Politics. Thanks to the QUB Green Society for letting me sit in on their meeting!

I think it’s fair to say that green politics don’t feature strongly in Northern Ireland’s political culture. Due to the history of the Troubles, the main divide in NI politics is the nationalist-unionist one, and this showed in the articles Stephen Spillane, Frank Schittger and myself wrote about NI in the lead up to the European elections in June (Northern Ireland is a single constituency for the European Parliament under UK law).

But in the European elections, the Green candidate, Steven Agnew did better than ever, with 15,674 votes (I had a small email interview with him at the time of the election). Still a small number, though the numbers are going in the right direction. In the regional Assembly, the Greens have 1 MLA (Member of the legislative Assembly), Brian Wilson, in opposition. This is their first Assembly seat, and it’s one the Greens have high hopes of retaining in the next regional election – and hopes of perhaps even winning a second.

I went along to a meeting of student greens at my university to see how active green politics are at a student and local level.

 

 

Some of the Student Greens at QUB, with co-leaders Lois and Mark on the right

 

Political societies, like most societies in my university, tend not to be very mission-driven, and fall back to being purely social clubs, so it was great to see that the Green Society was quite active in its approach. The society is involved in several campaigns, both on green issues and on other issues, but what particularly stood out for me was how the society was both outward-looking as well as focused on more local issues. One of the more student-related issues was the creation of an environment-focussed committee in the Student Parliament, and a push with the executive of the Student’s Union building to make the Student’s Union building greener. The society also had links with the Green parties in the Republic of Ireland and in Britain, with delegations to party meetings in Ireland, and links with the MEP Caroline Lucas’ campaign for a seat in Westminster in the May general election.

The wider links (again reflected in the pan-European Green stance taken during the European elections) especially appealed to me, but the Green Party in Northern Ireland has quite a mountain to climb in terms of growth: the other party in NI not situated along one side of the nationalist-unionist divide has failed to turn itself into a major political force, despite being the largest opposition party in NI (the top 4 are in a consociational coalition). However, the Green Party may have the potential for a broader appeal given the prominence of the climate change issue. “Being Green” is seen as a somewhat important value in NI now – this was especially apparent when the current finance minister Sammy Wilson caused controversy over his anti-climate change views while he held the environmental portfolio.

Can the Greens build on the acceptance of the dangers of climate change to increase awareness and make more of a political impact? I hope so.

OECD Review of Environmental progress in Ireland

A new Th!nk2 article on the OECD's recent report into Ireland progress on environmental commitments since 2000. You can read the original article on Th!nk About It here. It's also cross-posted below:

Last week in Dublin, the Secretary-General of the OECD, Angel Gurría, launched the Conclusions and Recommendations of an Environmental Performance Review on Ireland. The report was to review the progress Ireland has made on meeting its environmental commitments (both internally and internationally) since 2000, the year of the last review. The report, and the speech launching it, was couched in safe, inoffensive language, and stuck to very general recommendations (all the while scattering italics around the report in an annoyingly liberal and unnecessary way).


So, what are the good points? Ireland has made good progress on expanding the staffing and capabilities of environmental agencies and in strengthening domestic legislation on environmental protection. Ireland also has one of the lowest energy intensities of the OECD countries. However, it should be noted that the majority of environmental legislation originated in the EU institutions, and, despite a higher level of transposition into domestic law, in 2006 Ireland was the country with the highest number of court actions taken against it (at the European Court of Justice) by the European Commission for "infringing EU environmental directives".


The main areas where the report identified a need for change were: waste management, conservation and resource management.




Taxing water consumption was one of the few specific recommendations that the report made - apparently Ireland is the only EU country not to charge for water use (though, as of yet, the same is true of Northern Ireland). The OECD argue that bringing in water charges would discourage domestic water wastage and encourage the improvement of the water infastructure. Introducing water charges could be politically problematic in Ireland, however, since the "water culture" in Ireland is the assumption that water should be free since Ireland's a wet country and because there's so much of it about. Water charges are on the agenda in Northern Ireland, and have proven to be a very unpopular policy. Still, given the economic crisis and the sharp budget deficit of the Irish government, now might be the easiest time, politically, to introduce such a tax (a budget crisis may be looming in NI too, where the Executive [regional government] is still operating on a budget that was drawn up before the economic crisis).

The OECD has also urged Ireland to go further than the EU's ETS and introduce environmental taxes in areas not covered by the scheme - with the Greens in government and the need to raise more tax, along with the relative political acceptability of green taxes, will we see some experimentation with tax in Ireland?


When it come to waste, there's a serious problem in Ireland: it's not a binding duty of local government to provide for waste disposal or recycling. So, though the report notes: "voluntary approaches by business and industry, especially regarding air and waste, have led to increased recycling, reduced air pollution and the promotion of eco-innovation and energy efficiency", it does point out that the "lack of enforcementcapacity in smaller municipalities" has been an obsticle to good waste management. Since there's no obligation for local government to manage waste, it's easy for them to shirk their responsibility and instead lower rates (local tax). Though private companies step in in areas, their services can be more expensive than if they were administered by a public body, with the result that - in border areas - there's been a habit of dumping waste over the border in Northern Ireland, where local government does provide this service (this puts the resources of councils on the border under strain when it comes to dealing with waste). Action needs to be taken here quickly.


Another firm proposal that the report makes, is that Ireland finally sign up to the Aarhus Convention, which opens up progress on environmental protection to more transparency and scrutiny. The report also urges a closer relationship between economic planning and environmental policy.


In 2007, before the crisis hit Ireland, Ireland had a +25% increase in emissions, well above the +12.5% commitment in Kyoto. Could the economic crisis help Ireland and other states meet their Kyoto commitments?

Doubling the Plastic Bag Tax

Yesterday I posted my second article on the Th!nk2 blogging platform: "Doubling the Plastic Bag Tax".

Small excerpt:

"What do you check for when leaving for the the shops? Keys? Wallet? Do you check that you've remembered to bring a few bags with you, or do you just accept free plastic bags when you reach the till? In 2002, Ireland introduced a plastic bag tax to make shoppers think about their plastic bag usage, and now there are now plans to make them think twice as hard by doubling the tax to 44 cents. The idea was to encourage people to either re-use the plastic bags that they had, or, better yet, to buy more durable, non-plastic alternatives. [...]"

Comments are blocked for this post, so any comments can be made on the Th!nk2 blog.

It's only been a few days, but it's great to see a lot of blogging activity going on already.

European Election 2009: Update (3)

Short update this time (promise).

ELDR is naturally very pleased with it's result in the Netherlands, with an increase of one seat (to a total of 6 seats), which is bigger than the EPP (5) or PES (4) delegations. They've already posted about it on their website here.

The EPP has backed (4th June) the Commission's unemployment strategy - though the PES has no candidate to put forward their own strategy, the support of the EPP for this policy won't have any effect on the outcome of the election.

Polish MEP Jerzy Buzek is going to be the EPP candidate for EP President. The EPP aims to get Buzek elected for the first EP Presidential term.

For those who like to see at least some elements of a transnational campaign, there has been a Danish Liberal MEP, who's been campaigning across Europe (though EuroNews didn't say how many member states he covered). (So that's at least a few seconds of media time on a pan-European campaign...).



Ireland:

Fianna Fáil have suffered at the polls for the local elections, dropping as much as 8% from a low starting point in the last local elections (2004). This is likely to be reflected in the European elections, though with a high quota to win a seat, the only FF seat in real danger is Eoin Ryan's in the Dublin constituency.

Labour and Fine Gael have been the main beneficiaries of the FF loss. Interestingly in the Dublin councils, Sinn Féin haven't done too well, with Labour and more minor left-wing parties (Socialist Party; Worker's Party) attracting the swing votes. There are sketchy reports that Eoin Ryan is on 13.25%, Mary Lou McDonald on 13.1% and Joe Higgins on 13.45%.

Declan Ganley is reported (in a similarly sketchy way) to be doing better than expected, and is putting pressure on independent Marian Harkin. Reports are more accurate on a local election and nation-wide basis however, and counting won't start until 9am on Sunday.


Northern Ireland:

RTÉ has given a break down in turnout across Northern Ireland, and it's interesting to see. The votes will be counted on Monday.

European Elections 2009: Polling Day 2

The European elections have opened up in Ireland and for the first day in the Czech Republic.

[Edit: I'll add in a small "contents" for this post, considering it's size].

- Ireland.
- Czech Republic.
- UK.
- Northern Ireland.

Ireland:

In Ireland, where there are local as well as European elections (and 2 by-elections), turnout is looking to be pretty healthy on early indications. Politically, I don't think there's much to add since Wednesday/Thursday and on the news I've commented on before then.

It still looks like 2-3 seats at the most will change hands, with Dublin the closest battle ground - Eoin Ryan (FF/ELDR), Mary Lou McDonald (Sinn Féin/GUE-NGL)and Joe Higgins (Socialist Party/Non-Aligned) have been very close in the polls. It will be interesting to see if the interventions by politicians on possible alliances and how to transfer will have much effect on the third seat race there.

The Irish Independent has an article on 12 key local election battlegrounds, if you are interested.

[[The news has been focused to a certain extent on a Leaving Certificate (A-Level) story, where the English 2 paper was accidentally opened a day early, resulting in the exam being rescheduled for 9.30am on Saturday. Then there was an issue over Jewish students who didn't want to sit the test on the Sabbath (they will now be in isolation in a house over the Sabbath so they can take the test later). The Leaving Cert is always a big story in the Irish media each year with stories on exam pressure, etc. (It is the Isle of Saints and Scholars, after all).]]



Czech Republic:

In the Czech Republic, polls opened today (they will be open tomorrow as well). Here's some summary and news:

The two main parties are of course the ODS (President Klaus' old party and Topolanek's party) from which Topolanek's government was drawn until its collapse. It will form a new group with the UK Conservatives (which could be called the "European Conservatives"). Topolanek isn't exactly Lisbon-friendly, and notably described Obama's economic policy as a "road to hell".

The PES aligned CSSD played a major role in bringing down the government in the first place, which may not have done their image any good with the electorate as the fall of a Czech government during the Czech presidency of the European Council damaged the perceptions of the Czech Republic in the rest of the EU. The CSSD's leader has been the target of an egging campaign recently (see the third story here). I can't see an enthusiastic turnout for his party or indeed overall.

(There's a chance that tensions between the ODS and CSSD could spill over into a legal battle).

The EPP aligned KDU-CSL has just chosen a new leader to improve its image and to improve its electability. The new chairman, Svoboda, signals a possible shift to the left in the centrist party. This party is a minor one however, so I doubt the EPP can expect to gain much here.

President Klaus has had a sharp exchange with French Foreign Minister Koucher since the Czech President declared that the EP elections are "unnecessary".

Post-communist president Havel has spoken out against the smear tactics in the election campaigning (fourth story here). From the news I've read and heard, I'm not expecting European issues to feature much at all, and I'd say the confidence in politicians will be very low as (some) voters go to the polls.

Turnout is not expected to be high, as interest in European issues in the Czech Republic seem to be quite low. European issues just don't seem to be being made visible and clear to voters in this campaign.



UK:

In the UK, local election results are mostly in (as of writing, 30 out of 34 councils have been declared), and they may indicate the shape of the European results (though the European elections may have a higher protest vote against the main parties).

Local Council Seats [Change in square brackets]:

Labour - 159 [+250]
Conservatives - 1330 [+217]
LibDems - 439 [-8]
Others - 159 [+34]

For more detail, see the BBC's website here.

A clear swing to the Conservatives in terms of seats important to note that the LibDems are the only main party to increase their share of the vote, while the Conservative share has fallen more than any other party - though it still leads the LibDems by about 10%. I wonder if who will benefit the most in the European elections - LibDems, Conservatives or UKIP? And if the Greens will make respectable gains.

Government-wise, trouble over the resignation of several cabinet ministers has forced a messy, if limited, reshuffle. Brown is in a weakened, but more secure position now. For some strange reason, Sir Alan Sugar will get a ministry (and a peerage). From a EU point of view, Europe Minister Caroline Flint, who resigned, has been replaced by Glenys Kinnock. Caroline Flint is supposed to have resigned over not being promoted - I wouldn't say that her performance as Europe Minister has been particularly deserving of a promotion however. Not that the cabinet is exactly bursting with talent...


Northern Ireland:

In Northern Ireland the turnout is guesstimated at 45% by BBC Newline, with the unionist candidates seemingly close together - predicted to be within 19-13% of each other. Mick Fealty over at Slugger O'Toole has flagged up some estimations, and there's some O'Toole analysis here. Transfers will be everything, and the turnout in different sections of society could be key to the transfer trends.

European Elections 2009: First day of polling over

The first day of voting in the European elections is over - the polls have closed in the UK and the Netherlands, with low turnout still apparent.



The Dutch turnout was around 40% according to France 24 (4/6/2009), which would be up a percentage point from 2004 - hardly spectacular. It would be interesting to know how much of the EP's voter turnout campaign was spent in the Netherlands. I doubt the campaign had much impact anywhere.

Preliminary results have started coming out of the Netherlands too - even if it turns out not to be a strict breach in the rules, it is certainly a breach in the spirit of the election rule that no results would be revealed until all countries have voted. Reports say that Geert Wilders party, the PVV, will return the second largest Dutch contingent to the EP at 4 seats, while the senior ruling party (the Christian Democratic Appeal party/EPP) will remain the largest contingent despite losses at 5 seats. The PES-aligned PvdA should get 4 seats (down from 7).

Based on preliminary results (2004 seats in brackets) [Change in square brackets]:

EPP - 5 (7) [-2]
PES - 4 (7) [-3]
ELDR - 6 (5) [+1]
European Greens - 2 (2) [0]
GUE-NGL - 2 (2) [0]
InDem - 2 (2) [0]
Non-Aligned - 4 (0) [+4]

The swing is strongest in the direction of the non-aligned PVV, with a smaller movement towards the liberal ELDR group (two Dutch parties are members of ELDR, with one losing a seat and the other gaining two, so there may be voter movement within the ELDR group parties). The PvdA, currently in coalition with the Christian Democratic Appeal) was clearly the hardest hit.



In the UK the orthodoxy is that the main parties will be hit hard due to the expenses scandal. The most interesting aspects of the votes, when they're released, will be (1) how well the minor parties did - and which ones, and (2) how well the Conservative and LibDems did compared to Labour. Turnout-wise, the Times has put it at around 30% (via Jon Worth).

EP-wise the elections in the UK will likely lead to PES losses, a UEN/EC gain (though this can only be compared to the Tory delegation to the EPP-ED group in 2004-2009 since their new splinter group won't be formed until this term) and either no change for ELDR, or a slight gain.

The UKIP result will probably depend on how well they've managed to capitalise on voter discontent compared to the BNP and the Greens. I think that their vote will remain quite stable with perhaps a small increase. UKIP have complained that their chances being damaged by how the ballots were folded.

In the meantime, we can amuse ourselves with the Council election results for England, which will probably give an indication of the European results (since both are being treated as a referendum of the government anyway). Currently the results stand at:

(Seats with [Change in square brackets])

Labour - 16 [-8]
Conservatives - 17 [+4]
Liberal Democrats - 36 [+4]
Others - 1 [0]

Though obviously hardly any vote have been counted yet and it looks like a LibDem council may have been the first one to have been counted since only the LibDems have been confirmed to have won a council (Bristol), according to the BBC's council election counter. Still, a better picture should emerge later.



In Northern Ireland, turnout is going to drop as well, from around 51.7% last time to between 38-45%. Over at Slugger O'Toole they've been gathering the turnout data from polling stations around Northern Ireland. (See here and on the backup site here).

Of course, it's not just overall turnout that will matter in NI, but what sections of the community turned out and in what strength. Turnout among middle class nationalists and unionists will boost moderate parties and there could be some cross-community transfers. Turnout among working class nationalist and unionist areas generally favours Sinn Féin/DUP/TUV, with transfers more limited to intra-community parties.

A lower turnout could help Jim Allister (TUV), who, as a party to the right of the DUP, may be able to rely on a more hardcore support base. There may also be a chance that the unionist vote is split enough for Alban Maginness (SDLP) to win the third seat, though it's likely that Jim Nicholson (UUP/Conservatives) will retain the third seat.

[Side note: Frank Schnittger has written a good article on the tribalism of NI politics on Th!nk About It here].

The balance of turnout between the communities and the general transfer trends will be poured over, but it will have to wait until Monday, when the votes will actually be counted.

Today (June 5th) voting will begin in Ireland and for the first day in the Czech Republic.