He’s back… and he’s wrong… John Waters on Brian Cowen’s as a ‘strong father figure’… February 13, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Complete nonsense, Economics, Economy, Irish Politics.9 comments
Pity poor John Waters who has snuck back almost unnoticed aboard the good ship IT over the last few weeks following a break. Pity him the abysmal timing of his latest epistle to the Hibernians… for on a day when we learn that Brian Cowen’s satisfaction figure amongst the general public is down 2% at 24%, a mere 2% above the party he leads the sage of our times opines after reviewing the speech to Dublin Chamber of Commerce – a speech that he describes as being one in which “Brian Cowen’s deeper themes that night were postponement and reassurance, the great themes of fatherhood. What he was doing, very simply, was announcing himself as father of the public realm” – that:
Now, the party’s over, we need a different kind of father. Coming to grips with this has been Brian Cowen’s problem these past eight months. At first he tried to continue in the Bertie mould, but every instinct – his and ours – told everyone this was wrong. Now, yes, he has found his mojo: his daddy mojo. We have waited and waited, and now our father has come home.
“Political landscape changed utterly” – So says the Irish Times… but not quite enough for them… February 13, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economics, Economy, Irish Politics.3 comments
I have to be honest. I laughed out loud when reading the editorial this morning in the Irish Times. For there squirreled away between the talk about:
THE POLITICAL landscape [being] transformed in recent months as the recession deepens and the Government lurches from crisis to crisis.
And…
Falling living standards, rising job losses and perceived ministerial incompetence has driven this searing reassessment of Brian Cowen and his Government.
And also…
A dramatic surge in popular support for the Labour Party and its leader Eamon Gilmore, who has the highest rating of any political leader…
… was the following gem…
Growing unhappiness with the Government might have been expected. Income levies from the budget took effect in January and a public service pension charge was announced last week. But harsh measures can sometimes generate approval, if those administering the unpalatable medicine convince the public they know what they are doing and their actions will have a curative effect.
Oh yes. The ‘approval’ that the Irish Times so desperately craves for ‘harsh measures’ in its economic masochism. Well… somewhat masochistic, since one presumes that those writing such articles won’t be suffering too much.
There seems to be a complete incomprehension on the part of the editorial writer that people might actually quite like the current society we live in which – despite being extremely flawed and limited – has at least knocked some of the ‘harsher’ edges off life here and that they believe that a strong public sector is by no means the unqualified ill that our economic commentators and supine media suggest it is. Or that the crisis is not one of a voracious and untrammelled public sector wage bill but is in fact one of a political elite with near to no financial expertise in tandem with a media with next to no understanding of finance being led by the nose by the greed and sloth of financial sector that demands as of a right support from hard-pressed taxpayers and then refuses to provide even the most limited amelioration in return.
And perhaps the truth is also that when faced with the reality of the ‘unpalatable medicine’ a good 70% or so of the populace (excluding the Green Party and Fianna Fáil – both of whose votes may reflect party loyalty as much as any other factor) balked and said…no more.
How indeed to read the Irish Times glee at:
Mr Gilmore’s [success] in attracting the attention and approval of a broader constituency, particularly older and better-off voters. His party now enjoys more support in Dublin than Fianna Fáil and is challenging that party strongly in Munster.
All those right thinking ‘better-off voters’ who should, from the viewpoint of the editorial, be marching on the Dáil demanding that the government instate a minarchy. No wonder the Irish Times is confused and seeks solace in weasel words about ‘convincing’ and ‘knowing what they’re doing’ and not least ‘a curative effect’.
But for the Irish Times the message is not that the Government and its policies are pointed in entirely the wrong direction but that ‘The Government must demonstrate that it has a grip if it is to survive’. The implication being that ‘unpalatable medicine’ is the way to go. I think that they’re going to be sadly disabused of the notion that the electorate will ‘approve’.
What comes across loud and clear in our society as presently constituted is that our political, economic and media elite don’t actually subscribe to a ‘curative effect’ as you and I (I hope) know it where we have even a weak social democratic social compact which – in the longer term – will move towards a more progressive stance. They want those elements stripped out in the name of financial realism and providing succour to the ravenous and infinitely demanding financial sector.
And now, when it is clear that that sector has not merely concealed information, but used aspects of the governments own guarantee to them – effectively underwritten by this state itself as collateral – to further increase their profits in actions which are in economic terms treasonous, but beyond that societally entirely without any sense of moral compass, the Irish Times continues to bleat about how we the population who have no hand or part in this can’t take ‘unpalatable medicine’.
Indeed in an accompanying editorial the IT argues that:
In the absence of a comprehensive and credible plan to deal with their bad loans, Irish banks will continue to be treated with the utmost caution by their peers. There should be no further delay in addressing this issue even though the remedial action required is likely to involve further risks for the taxpayer.
And in this note how the IT is literally unable to comprehend that the problem does not lie centrally with the Government, although it too must take full share of the blame, but with Irish banks who even it must admit:
It is a matter of conjecture as to whether that decline was driven by concerns about the nature of the recapitalisation proposal itself or by a belief abroad – fostered by the latest revelations – that there is something so fundamentally amiss with Ireland’s banking culture that no amount of money can fix the problem.
But note that…
By long-fingering the issue of so-called toxic assets, the Government has stayed true to form; doing the least possible at the last minute.
This is bizarre. The IT in recent years has been only one amongst a raft of right-wing economic cheerleaders who have decried the notion of government regulation. And now? And now it turns and berates a government that spinning uncontrollably in the wind seeks to emulate all that it has been told but never quite understood?
And what of this?
However, on the downside, it has risked exacerbating the damage being done to the economy by delaying the steps necessary to facilitate the return of a properly functioning banking system.
Which presupposes that we ever had what it glibly terms a ‘properly functioning banking system’.
I had an interesting chat yesterday with Irish Eagle, who while coming from a different place politically and economically to this blog has arrived at some fairly similar conclusions, not least of which is that our financial, political and media ‘stakeholders’ have utterly sold this state short to the point that our future is potentially catastrophic.
And while the government may be discomfited by Denis Casey remaining as Chief Executive of Irish Life and Permanent after the Board refused to accept his resignation that is as nothing compared to the reaction of the market which has seen IL&Ps shares crash in value. Ooops… no he’s not the Chief Exec… that must have been a lovely meeting between Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan and chairperson of Irish Life & Permanent Gillian Bowler (who had overseen the decision to allow Casey to remain – truly some people do not get it, do not get it at all) today.
Meanwhile, impossible to resist this puff piece about the bould Bowler…
Relishing all of the different challenges, she says the one closest to her heart is Irish Life & Permanent, which Bowler regards as being similar to Budget Travel.
In what way?
“The people there are genuinely interested in bringing out innovative, new products and talk of their customers as people.” It’s part of her own philosophy – it is much easier to sell to people who are happy.
Innovative… customers as people… billions in inter-company loans…
Bowler’s other view about success is that to be successful you need to be a bit of a chameleon and make sure you understand how your customers do their business. “Even now, with Irish Life & Permanent, you have to put a different hat on and think how the customer thinks. Think yourself into someone else’s mindset.”
Hmmmm…
I’m told there’s more to come on the banking issue. Much much more. And of the sort that might well put significant stresses on the political system.
Garland Granted Bail February 13, 2009
Posted by Garibaldy in Human Rights, Ireland, Workers' Party.5 comments
Good news in the comments on this thread from Ghandi of North Strand. Seán Garland has been granted bail, albeit it under extremely onerous conditions. Details here.
Labour in second place? Hmmm… that might give the government pause for thought. But probably not. Anyhow, good to see some pain being shared around… February 12, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics.15 comments
True story. I was going past the Lincoln Inn, or whatever it now is, down beside Tara Street this evening and heard a guy on a mobile saying something about Fianna Fáil being in third place. I wondered then knowing that a new poll was out tomorrow whether… could it be… surely not.
But hey…
It shows Fianna Fáil support down 5% to 22%, behind Fine Gael, 32%,and Labour, up 10% to 24%.
Labour up 10%? Dear God. Something very interesting is happening here, but what precisely? It would suggest that a goodly portion of the FF vote has shifted to Labour. And what of the following:
Taoiseach Brian Cowen has the lowest satisfaction rating of all the party leaders, down 2% to 24%, while Labour’s Eamon Gilmore has the highest, up 6% to 44%.
Meanwhile:
Sinn Féin is up 1% to 9%, the Greens unchanged at 4%, and Independents and others down 4% to 9&.
Not bad news for Sinn Féin. Interesting news as regards the Independents, at least some of which vote has also transferred to Labour.
I’ve got to say there seems to me to be some credibility to the Green result. The RedC poll which had them at, IIRC, 8% seemed overblown. 4% seems about right, and might induce at least some small degree of consideration. But I wouldn’t bet on it.
To be part of one of the least loved administrations in this Republic’s history can hardly be a surprise to them, but I suspect it will be.
They’ll soldier on though.
But, really, Labour ahead of Fianna Fáil. Now that’s something. It may mean nothing, or at least only a little – FF remains a formidable vote gathering enterprise, but it might also suggest that the gloss has finally come off Fianna Fáil. And not before time.
We’ve heard a lot of guff about sharing the pain and about ‘tough decisions’ being taken, particularly from people who will do neither and in no way suffer the impacts of the latter. Here though is a testament to the reality of the policies and decisions taken by the government.
Libertas… so good you’d have to ‘think about’ running for them… February 12, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in European Politics, European Union, Irish Politics.4 comments
For a crowd which is mean to have the brightest and best working on its marketing and PR they don’t half come out with some strange stuff. Consider the curiously off-hand statement by…
Libertas activist Caroline Simons [who] said last night she was considering running in the European elections in Dublin. “I am thinking about it,” she said.
In a speech to be delivered tonight at Trinity College Dublin in response to former French president Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, Ms Simons describes herself as “somebody seriously thinking about putting herself before the electorate”.
Well, I’m somebody who is seriously thinking about having a cup of Ovaltine before I go to bed. I am thinking about it. Seriously thinking about it.
I might not though.
It’s an odd formulation that seems like something slightly less than a heartfelt cry of support, doesn’t it?
Although while she’s thinking about that she should think about this, she’s got just about four months to get a campaign together. So perhaps a bit of ‘doing’ instead of ‘thinking’ might not go amiss.
Anyhow, I don’t know.
It just never ends, it really doesn’t.
And to be honest I’m becoming just a mite suspicious that either Declan Ganley is keen to keep his face in the public view as much as humanly possible, or… and let me indulge in a bout of solipsism… he’s trying to help me in my task of writing something new every couple of days. Either way, fair dues to the man because it’s working and working well…
For yesterday he was back…
Denying he was a Eurosceptic, Mr Ganley said: “Because we’re Europeans, we have trouble with the Lisbon Treaty and the fact is, and I have challenged journalists, I have said: ‘Point to anything that Libertas or I have ever said that is any way Eurosceptic’. We are exactly the opposite. I have poured scorn on Eurosceptics because scorn is what they deserve.
This may well come as news to those people who signed the papers for EU funding, I’m talking naturally about those who signed and still remain loyal to the Project. For they are… let’s be frank… an exceedingly eurosceptic crew. Or as I referenced the Irish Times as saying last week…
The other supporters include three Eurosceptic MEPs: Philippe de Villiers and Paul Marie Coûteaux, both members of the Movement for France, and Greek MEP Georgios Georgiou. The national politicians backing Libertas – Lord Alton, a life peer in the British House of Lords; Finnish MP Timo Soini; Bulgarian MP Mincho Kuminev [Not any longer he doesn't]; and Polish regional assemblyman Cyprian Gutkowski – all of whom hold either Eurosceptic or staunchly conservative views.
And let’s be clear, there no harm there being eurosceptic either, not a route I’d take, granted – but one that is entirely legitimate. Yet hard to square with his protestations. Those must be quite some conversations they have together, de Villiers, Georgiou and the good Chairman. Scornful yet amicable. Eurosceptic yet europhiliac. And so on.
Another thought. He continually berates Brussels for taking us for idiots in ‘forcing’ a second referendum (and indeed for bringing about the first one, since by his lights Lisbon was merely a retread of the original Constitution… although as it happens we never got a chance to vote on that document). But when let me posit the hypothetical case of a politician who claims not to be a eurosceptic and yet derives their support, their direct political support at that, from er… eurosceptics, it’s hard not to feel that in such an hypothetical case we might indeed be taken for idiots.
Anyhow, on Wednesday the news that hot on the heels of his very public religious reflection he had now decided to:
[seek] a High Court order forcing Village Magazine to withdraw all copies of its latest edition which contains an article that is critical of him.
How critical?
Very critical!
For…
The application seeks to force the magazine’s publishers to withdraw the magazine containing an article entitled, “Declan Ganley, snakeoil salesman”, and to remove the same article from its website.
Ah… Village magazine. The magazine, like many that Vincent Browne has been involved in, has experienced a change of ownership and publisher. Go to the web and you’ll find that the latest incarnation now resides here … while the previous Village lives on, in a way, at this this address …
And for once it is Vincent Browne who is out of the firing line. For the new Village is the reprobate. Although reading through their website (on wordpress – natch) I couldn’t find the “Snakeoil salesman” piece on it. Perhaps they had already taken it down before I went looking.
But you will be glad to hear that all is sweetness and light between the good Chairman and Village. The new Village, not the old one. For…
…after talks between the sides, Mr Finlay told Mr Justice John MacMenamin yesterday afternoon that the parties had come to a resolution of the differences between them and he was happy for Eoin McCullough SC, for the defendants, to read an agreed statement to the court and for the case to be adjourned for two weeks.
Great stuff.
The agreed statement said: “The Village magazine strongly upholds its right to engage in vigorous investigation and comment on matters of public interest. Mr Ganley not only supports, but advocates, this right.
Au naturel… I mean… naturally…
“The Village , however, acknowledges that, given the opportunity, it would have been preferable to have interviewed Mr Ganley before publishing serious allegations about him.
Well yes, and in fairness to the Chairman, that would seem to be only reasonable.
“It has now been afforded this opportunity and will in its next edition, record and publish accurately the answers given by Mr Ganley in a wide ranging interview relating to both the issues giving rise to these proceedings and to other issues of interest to Mr Ganley and to the public.”
A nation holds it breath…
Sean Garland? He’s not going to go away, or at least not quite yet, which may be a problem for others… February 12, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, Seán Garland, The Left.64 comments
Someone whose opinion I very much respect made an interesting point to me yesterday noting that with all the kerfuffle over Sean Garland there must be those amongst the great and the good who would like this whole issue to go away. Because while the issue itself appears restricted to the WP post 1992 this shines a light on a period of our recent and relatively recent political history.
The bid to put clear blue water between the Workers’ Party and those – like myself – who left it over the years has broadly speaking been remarkably successful. Some of our most respected political names who spent quite literally decades in that school of politics have managed to emerge from it almost entirely untouched by it. And this despite being in leading positions throughout those decades.
Of course that may change if the situation continues. And the media, ever eager for a story will, perhaps with a certain degree of hesitancy borne of litigation but not absolutely so, make a few points that will perhaps be unanswerable.
Because one shining truth about the WP and after is that those of us who were in it – say during the 1980s – were broadly speaking aware that it was a diverse, shall we say.. coalition of interests. And with Vincent Browne working away in Magill during that period it is simply untenable to suggest that no-one knew. Feck it, I bloody knew, useless foot soldier that I was, even before I joined the party.
And this generated a bizarre paradox where a significant element of the source of the party’s authority came from it’s past (and not so distant past at that) while this past was disavowed vociferously time and again (and in some respects was transmuted into the old saw about the party being ‘highly disciplined’ and ‘efficient’, which was far from incorrect but wove into that past). And the point is that without that past what precisely was the WP? Just another party of the Irish left taking a position that was on one axis or another near indistinguishable from other parties (and it’s worth considering briefly the fate of similar parties from the 1970s Socialist Party of Ireland (SPI) and its successor the DSP to see just how limited the appeal of those views could be when detached entirely from a Republican tradition).
Now that sounds harsh, and its often been used as a political attack by enemies both of the party and those who departed for pastures new. But, I don’t doubt the fact that for many membership of the WP, complicated and contradictory vehicle as it was and is (and on many levels despite having travelled quite some distance politically from its positions I remain still more sympathetic to it than some might imagine and perhaps than I should), was an evolutionary process, not least due to the bear-pit, and worse, that Irish politics, and in particular left-Republican politics was during the 1970s and 1980s. Peoples political positions changed for many many reasons and that which was acceptable, or even tolerable, in earlier years became much less so as time progressed. For both those who stayed and those who left this has led to a sort of mutual incomprehension and a degree of silence.
And this has resulted in further paradoxes about the campaign to support Sean Garland. It’s not entirely unreasonable of some to argue that the solidarity that is asked for on his behalf is not a solidarity that was extended by the WP over the years to their political rivals. Indeed in a bid to present itself as whiter than white and above such matters one might, if only having a glancing acquaintance with that strain of Republican socialism, have the idea that certain aspects of its history had simply not existed after the early 1970s. And this central problem has shaped not merely it but also the response to it across the years.
My own problem with this is that realities and indeed dismal contradictions about the party were never publicly acknowledged by any of those who really should have from any quarter. That the paths taken were never explained properly, and instead explanations were ignored in favour of attacking others who would have to make similar transitions sooner or later in a fashion that was almost uniquely hypocritical from any objective viewpoint and arguably counter-productive. But, perhaps that’s asking too much (and look at the troubles that others who took divergent courses are having in relation to dealing with not entirely dissimilar pasts).
One fascinating dynamic – to me at least – in the years since has been the way both supporters of the WP and those who left effectively, albeit unconsciously, collude in a process that seeks to diminish these things. One could argue that it is a convergence of interest. What does it profit either to admit that the truth – as ever – was complex and sometimes very grim? So silence holds sway – and notable too has been the way in which neither side has attacked the other over issues which – one presumes – they could easily do so.
And I guess the irony is that as these aspects of the history of the WP move into the near historical the prospect of them being examined more clearly rises to the fore. But this history isn’t that long ago and many of those who were players remain players even if the labels and ideologies have changed.
Still, before others get too smug about such matters it’s not as though that this dynamic is unprecedented in Irish public life. Look around the political and social elites and some fairly remarkable examples of careers that started in radical or even revolutionary places and then transitioned towards a staid essentially bourgeois conformity. Many the former supporter or activist of the most remarkable ideological creatures now glides through our palaces of law and commerce.
Many many years ago I suggested to a leading WP, and later DL, light who was elected to high office a number of times that a broad history of the Irish left might be no bad thing. The suggestion was received with a look of absolute disdain, bordering on horror.
It took me a while to work out why. History is best written – at least for some – long after the participants make their exit. And this history would be problematic… in the extreme… precisely because apologias and explanations were eschewed completely by those involved.
How could it be otherwise? This is, after all, a rather small state with a small population.
Just how small a state might be revealed if this drags on and on.
Eamon Gilmore says ‘End scapegoating of public sector’… not before time… but what’s this… Labour must wait? February 11, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economics, Economy, Irish Politics.12 comments
“That is of course, not to ignore the public finances. Nor does it mean that those who work on the public services do not have a part to play nor are they unwilling to play their part,”
“But what I believe public servants this week are understandably saying is that they didn’t create the problem and therefore should not be singled out for unfair treatment, as if they were the whole problem.”
Interesting that he should state this so unequivocally. One wonders if he has some data on how the crisis is playing with the public and how the media campaign for economic ‘realism’ on such matters is going across? Or is this borne of necessity because that campaign has become so severe?
And yet, note that he also argues that:
“This, therefore, is not a time for industrial relations tactics which may have worked for you in the past but which now will only further alienate a wider public who are worried about the security of their own jobs and businesses.”
And he may be correct in the specific. And yet he may not be in the general. Because something that strikes me as very interesting at the moment is the way in which the public sector debate has been swamped once more by the banks issue. While the media at the weekend was filled with pages about the public sector ingrates it is very noticeable how the refocus on the banks has revved up public anger at them.
And really, is that so very surprising, because while a pension levy on lower to mid-level salaried public employees is a nebulous thing – and there is a glaring contradiction between the rhetoric emanating from business and media about the ‘privileged public sector with job security and excellent pension provision’ as compared with the dark mutterings about how pay cuts will be followed by shedding jobs… some security there – the stark disparities in income between bankers, and no small assist in terms of Bank of Ireland talking about pay increases sort of indicates that sharing the pain as between public and private sector seems to be far from a one way street and that cloth-eared business is… you guessed it… cloth-eared. And unlike the ESB which is a net contributor to the Exchequer there is something unseemly about BofI employees benefiting from the largesse of the government.
Indeed one wonders why BofI was so entirely stupid as to do this at this time. Most curious. Although not half as curious as their reluctance to offer a two year moratorium on repossessions of houses on defaulted mortgages. Sure, I know the explanation, their fear of a larger sub-prime market developing in the state, but that rings hollow in the context of their previous policies as regards mortgages, and in the context of what may well be a catastrophic social and economic climate aided and abetted by a government that appears unable to understand the necessity to fill in the stimulus side of the equation one can only wonder.
But the problem for the government is that the banking issue will keep popping up since their approach to it has, so far at least, been one of noticeable aversion to intervening too decisively. And every time it does it will inflame an already irritated and angry public opinion.
If the unions in their protests are willing to indicate that it’s not just the levy that has them on the streets but equally, if not more so, the complete lack of a financial stimulus package to support public and private enterprise, and that the protests are as much about saving jobs in the broad economy, then they may well be worth making.
And perhaps in tandem with such a strategy Gilmore should be shouting just a little louder about the banks and inequities. And that now the pound of flesh, or at least this years pound of flesh, has been extracted from the public sector and that at least some of the ‘pain’ has been shared about and it’s time to share a bit of anger. Because it could be that that seam of public anger is a rich one just waiting to be tapped and directed. For those as might do so.
Republicanism and shades of 1969… those documents from 1934 released by the Department of Justice. February 11, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish History, The Left.11 comments
It’s never entirely wise to look for close parallels in history, but I think people would be forgiven for seeing at least some echoes from 1969 in the papers released by the Department of Justice this weekend.
Because they detail how the IRA in 1934 sought to plan for a ‘seizure of power by coup d’etat’ that year.
Most pertinently:
An accompanying commentary on Twomey’s message from a senior officer in the Garda Síochána states that it is “mere bluff and is directed at putting something spectacular before the rank and file for the purpose of keeping them together”.
And the reason for trying to retain the integrity of the organisation was that…
The Garda estimate of IRA strength is given as “about 8,041” for the 26-county area, with “a limited supply of rifles, revolvers and ammunition” at local level. In addition, the split by left-wing elements to form the Republican Congress party and the establishment of a reserve force by the Fianna Fáil government, “had the effect of disintegrating the organisation to a very considerable extent”.
Obviously this attests to the success of Fianna Fáil in achieving state power and being able to stem any movement towards those Republicans who refused to join with them. But the echoes with 1969 are evident. Granted in this instance it was a direct split from the IRA to the left which was of significance… but note that whereas the Gardai perceived the IRA plans to be “a desperate endeavour to stem the disorganisation and disintegration that threatened its very existence” it was from the left that the state would potentially have problems.
Indeed one sentence is very striking: “It is thought that the orthodox IRA will never be a serious menace to the Government as at present constituted”. How to read this? That the IRA would not take on Fianna Fáil? Or that Fianna Fáil would be better able to deal with the IRA?
Whereas:
“The Republican Congress Group, under Peadar O’Donnell, which endeavours to get control of the Labour Organisations in the country for the purpose of creating general social disorder and internal chaos will be a much greater menace. The more this organisation’s efforts are thwarted by the existence of the orthodox IRA the better. If the latter ceased to exist there would be much more recruitment to the Congress ranks with the inevitable social consequences.”
And, in this we see played out in the 1930s many of the debates that fuelled the splits in the 1960s as regards different roads towards a Republic. With the benefit of time it is perhaps possible to argue that neither road would lead to the desired destination and that Republicans seriously underestimated the capacity for a democratic state, however flawed and however weakened by partition, to generate its own coherency or how little purchase they had on the broader societal imagination. And add to that a slew of other factors, such as the innate conservatism of the society and the parlous state of the left which provided both support, but also a barrier to the ambitions of Republicans of all stripes.
Meanwhile, somewhat less depressingly, entertaining to read from the same release of documents just how hard and fast the Blueshirts successors played with the law during the mid to late 1930s. Those defenders of law and order provided a far from exemplary approach during that period:
GARDA PAPERS from 1935 and 1936 reveal a catalogue of “outrages and offences” by members of the League of Youth, the new name adopted by the Blueshirts to get around a 1933 ban.
And…
In May 1935 an attempt was made to burn the home of Fianna Fáil TD Patrick Murphy in Mitchelstown, Co Cork. In the same month shots were fired at a GAA dance in Buttevant. No one was injured.
And…
A month earlier at Castletown Kildorrey, Cork, three shots were fired at the home of David Nolan, “as a reprisal against members of the family who had given evidence in court proceedings against Blueshirts”.
And…
On St Patrick’s Day 1935 in Kilmallock, Limerick “a party of Blueshirts got out of control and attacked everybody and anybody whom they considered were opposed to them. The position was so serious that the gardaí were obliged to use their batons.”
And…
In July 1935, 200 women and 40 men assembled outside the military barracks in Fermoy for a sale of seized cattle. When gardaí refused admission “the women threw dust, sods, stones and eggs at the gardaí”. The same month in Kerry “an armed attack was made on the Bank of Ireland premises at Listowel. The bank manager, one Mr Elliott, is a Protestant from the north of Ireland and this attack was intended as a reprisal for the recent attacks on Catholics in Belfast.”
Shocking stuff, I think we can all agree.
Worth noting that Fine Gael was founded on 3rd of September 1933.
Chairman Ganley amongst the religious… February 10, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in European Politics, Irish Politics.9 comments
Great stuff in yesterday’s Irish Times
from Declan Ganley, for in a bid to get away from it all he retreated to a place of religious contemplation. Or more precisely a conference…
…organised by the Catholic John Paul II Society and co-hosted by the pro-life Human Life International group.
And what better venue for the Chairman to assure…
…delegates of his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage, referring to earlier opening remarks in which he quoted from Pope Benedict’s recent encyclicals, Deus Caritas Est and Spe Salvi, “with their message of God’s love”.
And possibly in a reference to recent events…
He queried whether “we have lost something”
Yes, yes indeed. We… or he… lost Bulgarian and Czech representatives of Libertas… oh… sorry, he meant….
..the address of the pope at St Peter’s Basilica in Rome immediately prior to his election in April 2005. There, the pope criticised a “dictatorship of moral relativism . . . in a world where faith in God is seen as a threat”, Mr Ganley said.
By whom? To whom? I think he protests too much. What I suspect he really means, and those who hold that view, is that their very specific religious viewpoint isn’t reified in this contemporary age. Well. Okay. That’s tough, but hey, those of us on the left are in a similar boat with our viewpoints too. And as we know all too well, there’s little point in whinging about it.
Not that that stopped him…
He went on to criticise “a media obsessed with breaking down the domestic church . . . and the family” and reminded delegates that “the essence of our faith is that all life is sacred”. He concluded: “Yes we must, we must take risks for truth.”
Still, to the main issue that exercises him…
In the later question-and-answer session, he said any guarantees given by the EU on social and ethical issues “were not worth the paper they are written on”, where the European Court of Justice was concerned.
You might think that a bit of an overstatement… ‘not worth the paper they are written on’… so, so unlike those signatures on the Libertas EU party application forms… but this is a land of over-egged puddings, of exaggerated claims… and so…
He continued: “I have been called a liar, a murderer, an arms dealer, a CIA agent, a KGB agent – all of those things, all are filthy lies, but even if [such things were true] it doesn’t change the truth of what we are saying is in this treaty.”
Hmmm… a murderer ? Really? That one passed me by. And KGB agent as well, surely he means the FSB… time moves on Chairman – it really does. But look, am I alone in thinking that the second part of the sentence is not quite the message he should be putting abroad (oops… I mean… of course… in Ireland…). Look at it this way… imagine if someone here were to come out and say, “A chairde, WorldbyStorm has been called a bollix, a plagiarist, an alcohol abuser and a regular listener of dodgy 1980s music – oh yeah, and they say he’s selling documents sent in to the Left Archive on ebay for madly inflated prices – all lies, but even if they’re true [shrugs shoulders] what does that detract from what he’s saying about x, y or z?”. Somehow that’s not the most convincing defense, is it?
And what of this?
He said that on average more than 80 laws a year came from Brussels.
So few ? Great news I think we’ll all agree.
Still, never let a day pass without the Chairman exercising one of his impressive 180º conceptual turns…
However, he also warned one should “never become a Eurosceptic”. The EU, he said, was “a lesson learned from the bloodfest suffered on this continent for hundreds of years”.
Bloodfest?
“The miracle of [the European Union] is that it has ended [the violence and war that] was on the European continent and so is deserving of our support.”
Well and good. Except for those bastards actually in the ‘miracle’ that is represented by Brussels… Well, let’s say he’s not a fan…
LIBERTAS WAS “formally recognised as a political party against the best efforts by Brussels”, [he] said. He “had been reliably told” that officials in Brussels were instructed to find one comma out of place, one “i” not dotted, he said.
Which is great, but how reliably informed? As reliably informed as he was on the issue of his Czech friend and the Bulgarian? Ah well, this one size fits all conspiracy theory expands to deal with that…
Two supporters in eastern Europe had been “nobbled” he said, “but there were plenty of others”.
Yes. No doubt. But shouldn’t he have been a little more circumspect when he dealt with the ‘two supporters’ in the first place – and by the by ‘nobbling’ doesn’t entirely describe a process where his ‘supporters’ appear to be more or less straight-line nationalists unwilling to join a pan-national political grouping, hardly unprecedented on the eurosceptic right. Still, if they were ‘nobbled’ what does that tell us about his judgement, or that of Libertas, to sort friend from foe? And if he didn’t expect such machinations, and no doubt this is a tribute to his good nature and fine capacity to believe the best in people, well surely in light of the following statement he should have…
The problem was, he said, that “the Brussels elite holds you in contempt . . . telling you to vote again. They told the French, the Dutch, and now you, to vote again . . . taking us for absolute fools, uninformed idiots.”
Erm… wasn’t it Libertas who pushed hard on the Commissioner issue, now changed so that we will retain our beloved representation in Brussels? Seems a tad ungrateful.
And look, I have some sympathy for the argument that not a lot has changed. But I have none for the argument that nothing has changed. We’re a global financial crisis away from the first referendum. Like them or not issues that were highlighted by Libertas as existential ones are now, we are informed, to be addressed. There is a point where being told that we are perceived as fools in relation to Brussels machinations becomes a little bit tiresome… people will have every opportunity to judge the worth of the competing arguments at the place which vests them with the greatest authority.
Ireland, he said, “made the most pro-European statement [in rejecting the Lisbon Treaty]. We want Europe to be strong, but it is also going to be accountable.”
Vote No and make the most pro-European statement. Line up a fine array of euro-sceptics and attest that one is euro-philiac. Complain about the Brussels elite but seek greater centralised powers and representation (for yes, he seeks in a way that would cut across national sovereignty, extra powers for the Parliament, and an enhanced Presidency). Red is white. Bad is good.
Libertas will sweep the EU at the next election. Or not. You and me, or at least those of us with the opportunity to vote or not for Libertas candidates, will – quite literally – decide. Speed the day.
