11.05.07
Leviathan – The Irish
Another point raised at Leviathan.
David argued his theory that the EU and all that was good for Ireland but as soon as it stops being good and being a member acts against our interest – then we should drop out and go it alone.
I disagreed and paraphrased an argument John Bruton has used before in relation to the EU.
Ireland is a small, open, economy in a globalised world. If we are not in the various multilateral organisations they will go ahead and make their decisions without reference to us and we will be victim to their whims and strategies. Better to be in there, at the table, and have some hope of our voice being heard and being in a position to negotiate the best deal for us. Do we want to be inside or outside the tent? Surely better to be inside?
David and the general derision of the crowd responded pretty much thus: “Sure who listens to us? No advantage whatsoever being at the table”
I said – “Hang on a second – we’re trying to figure what’s Irish – If there’s one thing that IS Irish its that we’re communicators. Our diplomatic corps is famed and we are notoriously successful and cutting deals for ourselves in the EU and elsewhere. Our hosting of the Presidency, for example, is always acclaimed”
Response?
Hoots of derision! David said “I never heard anyone say that. Who care?”
I was astounded! Alright, so the Irish are drinkers, explorers and writers. Above all else we are talkers! We are great at this stuff. I was astonished (of course, the crowd were lefties) but still, if we have one thing, we have some smart civil servants. (with obvious exceptions). But DFA always got the best people…
I think it would be nuts to drop out of the EMU for example. I know we could’ve done with the power to raise our own interest rates over the past 10 years but I wouldn’t be totally convinced by anyone who said that this would have prevented our property mania. That was driven , yes by low interest rates, but moreso by huge demand and reckless lending by banks.
student said,
November 6, 2007 at 10:30 am
This position of Dave McW’s is idiotic and a signifier that he has moved entirely into the realm of noisemaking punditry, rather than actual economics.
It is simply ignorant to believe that Ireland does not have influence in international organisations – in fact, our influence outweighs our significance. We don’t have the power of the US/UK/France/Germany for example, but more more influence that we could hope to have had prior to EU membership.
Advocating a pull-out from the EU is entirely nonsensical, even if we were to remain within the EEA.
Gordon Davies said,
November 6, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Pulling out of the EU would bring Chalie McCreevy back into Irish politics. is there a more convincing argument for staying in!
Gordon
Uncle Junior said,
November 6, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Now that David McWilliams has given up all attempts to engage in actual economic analysis and debate I look forward to him seamlessly taking over David Caruso’s role on “CSI:Miami” as suggested by TodayFM.
The “hoots of derision” and David McW’s schoolyard cry of “Who cares?” when you tried to defend Ireland’s diplomats and reputation abroad were just born of ignorance. Ireland has a reputation within the EU that’s much bigger than our population would merit and that good reputation is a crucial advantage when it comes to EU negotiations on matters of interest to us. This should not be a surprise to Horatio Crane McWilliams given that the typical Irish strengths include networking, creativity, getting on with people, ALL of which are crucial skills in an international environment.
When Horatio asks, “Who cares?” he should consider that the current head of the EU Civil Service is an Irishwoman (Catherine Day) and she succeeded an Irishman (David O’Sullivan, ex-DFA). In the 50-year history of the EU this is an unprecedented mark of the institutional respect in Brussels for Irish civil servants, especially when one considers that the Sec-Gen job has traditionally been the preserve of mandarins from the 6 founding member states. The Irish Permanent Representation to the EU is one of the smaller such offices in Brussels but it, together with the Civil Service at home, has delivered 5 very successful Presidencies evidenced by the steady trail of visitors from other member states eager to learn how to run a 27-country institution to best effect with a small team. Another proof of the high regard in which Ireland is held on the international, diplomatic stage is that – after the 2004 Irish Presidency of the EU – key EU powerbrokers really wanted to give the EU President job to Bertie instead of Barroso. This was a real possibility at the time, not just idle chatter generated by the Irish media, and it was not due solely to Bertie’s innate personal brilliance (ahem) but to a recognition of the achievements by the Irish administration (political and administrative) in the EU context, allied – in fairness – to Bertie’ people-skills.
As a consequence of Ireland’s performance in the EU over the years we have developed critically important contacts and networks and it’s fair to say that Ireland is looked to for advice by many of the recent entrants in the 2004 EU intake. Whatever about the failings of the Civil Service at home (and there are many, though the counterpoint of CS achievements over the last 85 years tends not to make good copy) I think it’s only fair to recognise, and take pride in, the achievements of Irish people in international diplomatic and negotiating fora, e.g. a seat on the UN Security Council a few years back anyone? John Bruton as the EU’s man in Washington?
The good international reputation of Ireland in the EU, the UN and elsewhere reflects a view of Irish people as good communicators, personable people, honest brokers who don’t take themselves overly seriously. Belittling this reputation demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of the globalised world we live in: far-reaching decisions are taken, often over many years, at supranational level and it is only through assiduous building of international relationships and reputation that a very small country like ours can influence the shape of those decisions. Whatever about the rights and wrongs of opting-in to the single currency the idea of stepping outside the EU is naive and foolish, a bit like Horatio’s recent TV programme.
My humblest apologies for the lengthy nature of this comment but populist ignorance needs to be challenged and I applaud you, Sarah, for having the gumption to do that in the face of pantomime levels of derision.
BTW, if it happens again I can send Paulie Walnuts around to McWilliams’ place to remind him what happened to Big Pussy Bonpensiero when he got out of line.
Liam said,
November 8, 2007 at 9:09 am
Hi Sarah
Just as a matter of interest, were you surprised at the way the debate developed? I was there with an Amercian friend and afterwards we talked about how quickly it moved from a debate about collective “national” soul / identity to a debate on immigration. I think David McWilliams tried to bring it back by saying something like “how can we tell the Poles and the others about what it means to be Irish when we can’t even agree on it ourselves” or words to that effect.
I did expect immigration to come up in the debate but not as centrally as it did (perhaps I am naive like you).
Sarah said,
November 8, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Hi Liam
Well, I was unprepared, though I suppose I shouldn’t have been. I thought David’s point was good at the time, but the more I think about it, the more irrelevant it appears to be in a globalised world. One person made reference to this on the night. Like, what’s a French person? Into good food, existenialism and smoking? Liberty, equality and all that. Well so what? They know what they are but it didn’t stop their race riots and it didn’t stop Le Pen. In fact, an overdeveloped sense of nationalism is the WORST thing you need when you’ve got an immigrant population (damn, why didn’t I think of this then).
Nationalism is a bit of a disaster, so actually we are much better off with our Friend’s accents, our love of English soaps, our increasing penchant for Australian BBQs and our holiday homes on the continent not to mention shopping trips to NY. Does it really matter how Irish we think we are? A good citizen speaks the language, works, pays taxes and is nice to their neighbours. Once our immigrants do that, and we help them to do that, then why do we have come up with some concise explanation of WHO we are?
Tomaltach said,
November 12, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Does it really matter how Irish we think we are?
I think it matters that we have a sense of nationhood. A sense of shared destiny. (I need to be careful here – I’m fully aware of where rapid, blinkered nationalism can lead). What I mean is this. I don’t like the philosophy of life prevalent in America that says the individual is all that matters. I believe community is important. True, the individual should be allowed much freedom to further her own endeavours. But this will always be limited. The ordinary man or women alone will not be able to build a GAA pitch – the community does. Same for the town library. Or civic space. Can the individual provide a university? Yes through the market? But the market can only do so much, and we know the kind of society we end up with if price is the only determinant in who gets what.
A sense of community is perhaps the most powerful tool in the face of catastrophe or disaster. But that is true of any challenge – including the project of building an Ireland which will be a fit environment for our children in a globalised world. This cannot be done without a sense of commonality, of shared purpose.
When I say a sense of nationhood I don’t mean ethnic nationalism or the narrow traditional mythic variety. I mean civic nationalism. Basically a sense of civic republicanism. The idea is that we would have a sense of civic virtue or responsibility and that we would attempt to build an open, fair society while respecting others. But more than that. At the same time we would cherish our heritage in a generous way and promote aspects of our culture that we collectively value. But all of these notions must be inclusive not exclusive.
The trouble is that none of these things can be achieved by enacting a law or making a decree. Any guiding hand needs to have a light touch, for these things are best to develop organically.
If we accept that the state is an appropriate instrument to provide for our needs at a certain level, then what gives the state legitimacy. Does its legitimacy not derive from a sense of pooled sovereignty, a sense of common purpose, a sense that we are all in this together? Is this sense of shared destiny not a flavour of nationhood?
JC Skinner said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:04 pm
DFA always got the best people???
I’ll have one of what you’re having, Sarah! You should read The Accidental Diplomat and reconsider.
Sarah said,
November 15, 2007 at 10:30 am
well Delaney didn’t last long did he?
Leon said,
November 19, 2007 at 1:10 pm
How do you know that DFA get the best people? They are our national spin doctors; is it any wonder that they can spin for themselves?
Justice and Finance have the power. I would suggest that the RPA has more power than Foreign Affairs.
On the core national aim of reunification they have dropped the ball.
As regards the EU do you really believe that we ‘punch above our weight’ internationally?
Only one small country’s performance as president has been criticised. That country is Greece and the Greeks are clearly less civilised than the rest of Europe. They’re moderns and we are all post moderns.
Are we better regarded than the Czechs, the Danes the Swiss or the Norwegians?
How much of Brand Ireland is based on the DFA? They didnt starve millions of people into emigration (or maybe they did wouldn’t put it past them).
What great international institutions are based in Ireland?
Could we stop believing our own bullshit please.
Sarah said,
November 19, 2007 at 1:16 pm
The EU presidency by several LARGE countries has been criticised – the UK for example.