Author: paleoutlaw

Continue reading “HOWEVER YOU LOOK THE FIGURES DON’T ADD UP 1603LXXXV” →

MUGGED BY REALITY ?

“ A statesman must wait until he hears the steps of God sounding through events, then leap up and grasp the hem of his garment.”   “A government must not waiver once it has chosen its course. It must not look to the left or right but go forward.” Two quotes from  Bismarck on which Angela Merkel must surely have reflected during recent months. The leader of Europe’s most populous country, its strongest economy and dominant  political force,  Europe’s  longest serving Head of Government, is facing the biggest political challenge of her career.

Her announcement in early September that Germany would accept all refugees from Syria seemed the right thing to do. Indeed she did not have much choice. The plight of migrants trying to get to Europe had dominated the media for months following the drowning of hundreds in the Mediterranean . Public interest and sympathy increased dramatically as the flow turned into a tide and as a new route in the eastern Mediterranean via Turkey and Greece became the preferred one. There was public horror and demand for action after the poignant images of  a drowned toddler washed up  on a Greek shore appeared. Throughout Europe thousands offered to help by materially assisting refugees, even offering to accommodate them in their own homes.

Europe’s official response had been a number of hand-wringing EU summits, long on rhetoric, short on solutions. Many EU countries were indifferent or signed up to token responses at best. Ireland at least joined a number of countries in sending a ship to aid  in rescue operations off the Libyan coast and has committed, to date, to taking 4,000 refugees.

The increasing flow of migrants seeking to enter Europe was given impetus and augmented by the surge of refugees fleeing the worsening conflict in Syria. With no solution in sight, with ISIS controlling more and more of the country and with several million refugees already in neighbouring countries, the attraction of Europe, where some already had relatives, was obvious. The shorter and ostensibly safer sea route via Turkey beckoned and there was no shortage of  people traffickers to facilitate.

So they came, in a human tide of up to ten thousand a day,  arriving in Greece and pushing on through the Balkans towards more prosperous Northern Europe, the numbers supplemented by refugees from Iraq, Afghanistan,  Eritrea and elsewhere.  Media coverage was frenzied, with references to a flow of biblical proportions and to the greatest mass migration into Europe since World War Two. The magnet was Germany, Europe’s prosperous economic powerhouse, with a history of taking in refugees since the Nineties and which, given its demographics, needed to import labour.

Merkel’s announcement  that there was no upper limit on the numbers with a right to asylum did little more than paraphrase refugee rights under the 1951 Refugee Convention but signalled that  Germany would welcome those from Syria trekking north.  The net effect was to intensify the flow. It was after all an opportunity  for a future and a new life for anyone who could make it. Europe’s border controls, such as they were, buckled and were overwhelmed . The  EU regulation that refugees should be tethered to the first country they entered collapsed. As the reaction began, with Hungary the first EU state to break ranks and erect border fences, and others following, the push was on  to enter before the door  slammed shut.

Five months later the issue has morphed into one with the potential to derail or re-orient  the direction of the EU, bringing down Merkel in the process. In a domino effect, border controls are being reintroduced in a number of countries. Roughly a million refugees arrived in 2015 in Germany and Sweden alone, the other country to operate an open door policy. Winter has reduced but by no means stopped the refugee flow, with,  as I write, new arrivals in Germany running at 3,000 per day.

Merkel has stuck to her guns, but is now on the defensive, under mounting political pressure from her own party, the opposition and the German states, who,  with resources already strained to the limit,  fear being overwhelmed by a new  influx.  Sweden is no better. The right to asylum looks increasingly like an albatross for both countries but one they cannot shrug off.  Placebo measures to enforce asylum provisions strictly,  with rapid turn around and deportation of  those  deemed not political refugees seem unlikely to have much practical effect.  Repeated calls for EU solidarity and more burden sharing,  have so far fallen on deaf ears.

It’s not simply about numbers, whatever the short term pressure on resources.  A Europe of five hundred million could easily absorb last year’s million, and the anticipated  one and a half million plus in 2016. Certainly a reduced and more orderly flow would help but the simple fact is that public enthusiasm and sympathy  for the refugees has been waning across Europe.

There are reasons for this. The wealthier regimes in the Middle East are seen as doing nothing to help ( Saudi Arabia offered to build 200 mosques in Germany!), and  adding to the problem by waging war by proxy in Syria. Many of the arrivals are perceived not as genuine refugees  but rather as economic migrants seizing the opportunity to enter Europe.  A disproportionate number of the arrivals appear to be young single men.  European right wing and populist parties have cashed in,  playing up the cultural and religious differences of the newcomers and suggesting that European democratic and liberal values are under threat.

Public fears were given impetus after the November terror attacks in Paris with the revelation that several of the attackers could have been recent arrivals from Syria, in fulfilment of an ISIS threat to infiltrate terrorists among the refugees. This was  hardly totally surprising -most people recognise that it is impossible to guard against  every  fanatic  – but, with European border controls seen as down or ineffective, with European tourists being targeted by suicide attackers elsewhere ( most recently in Istanbul) , the Paris massacre helped stoke fears and focussed suspicion on migrants as a whole.

Then came New Year’s Eve, with reports of sexual harassment of women by North African men in Cologne and several other German cities, attacks which police initially covered up fearing a racist backlash. The harassment attacks were explicable but not excusable. Take a large group of  young men, newly arrived in Germany,  linguistically and culturally different, in particular in  their attitudes  towards women, and tolerated, but not necessarily welcomed  with open arms, in their new host country.  Place them as outsiders and onlookers at New Year festivities where local men and women are celebrating and you have a  recipe for disorder. So it proved, sparking outrage not confined to feminist groups. Subsequent foolish suggestions that  European women should take precautions in dress in their home countries and avoid going out alone did not help.

As of now Merkel has lost the battle for public opinion. With refugees continuing to arrive, with the associated costs of catering for them rising, with European partners indifferent, there is no easy solution. God’s footsteps cannot be heard. Watch this space.

20/01/16

Continue reading “MUGGED BY REALITY ? 1602 LXXXIV” →

WHERE MOTLEY IS WORN ?

2016 promises to be interesting with the 1916 Centenary celebrations, the pending General Election and the June UEFA Soccer Championship Finals in France plus whatever else may come.

It marks the Centenary of the Easter Rising – which has made us what we are. Already books by the score have appeared or been signalled about every aspect of the Rising and its legacy. Expect more, as well as a calendar of celebratory events, on the ground and in the media. For if ever a poet got it right Yeats did so with his phrase “ All changed, changed utterly.” The Easter Rising certainly did that.

And if one thing is a racing certainty it is that the commemorations will be accompanied by an orgy of breast beating and navel gazing about whether and to what extent Ireland today has lived up to, or fallen short of, the ideals of 1916. Some of this, of course, is not new. For example, the phrase in the Proclamation “cherishing all of the children of the nation equally,” has been used for years to attack successive governments for the evident disparities of opportunity between children of different wealth and class. Woe betide anyone who queries its literal meaning – surely metaphorical – or some of the other wording in the Proclamation, such as the reference to support from “gallant allies in Europe.”

Arguably every History-of-Ireland book written about post -1916 Ireland has touched on the topic. Suffice to say here that “We are where we are,” which is a reasonably prosperous and stable Western European democracy which has managed to exorcise over time most of its demons, historical, religious, social and societal. It’s a long way short of perfect, but I haven’t noticed many perfect societies around.

This is also Election Year, with the centenary likely to add spice to opposition rhetoric. February seems the probable election date, with Enda Kenny overwhelming favourite to remain Taoiseach (nine to two on). Interestingly also the odds against the current coalition being returned have shortened significantly to nine to two against, though the odds on a Fine Gael/Fianna Fail government remain shorter.

What is indisputable is that Enda Kenny is one lucky general. He almost pulled off victory in 2007. Had he done so he would have been sunk without trace when the slump hit. In 2011 he got the Taoiseach’s job, gift wrapped as Fianna Fail imploded, and with the bonus that most of the heavy lifting to sustain and revive the economy had already been done by the two Brians. Early on his government secured an improved deal from the ECB which gave it some wiggle room and it enjoyed a lengthy honeymoon period with considerable benefit of the doubt from the public.

The latest indicators are that the economy bottomed out in late 2010, grew slightly for several years and has now surged ahead at a pace far faster than anticipated by most economists. Partly this has been due to the recovery of the world economy, which has produced a wave of inward investment, generating jobs. The scale of the recovery, otherwise, suggests that, leaving aside the bank catastrophe, many elements in the economy were sound and in position to bounce back rapidly, with the cuts imposed helping to improve the country’s competitiveness.

But, again to demonstrate how lucky Kenny has been, important additional factors aiding recovery have been the sustained period of historically low interest rates worldwide and the decline in energy and commodity costs, all of which helped Ireland’s recovery and, inter alia, made servicing the annual debt much less burdensome than in years past. In short the economies and cuts, though painful, could have been much worse.

The jury is still out on whether the government is getting its message across. Even with economic growth touching 7% – almost Celtic Tiger rates – the opinion polls don’t demonstrate great enthusiasm for the Coalition. Fine Gael seems steady at around 30% but Labour has yet to sustain the 10% level most commentators consider essential to translate into a significant number of seats. The combined magic number is 80 and with Fine Gael currently looking at around 60 there is some way to go. Uncertainty still abounds. However, it is still the phoney war period. Electioneering will not begin in earnest until January when the New Year budget concessions will certainly do Labour no harm. The stability factor is incalculable but could also prove significant.

We will shortly be presented with the various party election manifestoes and promises. Much of the middleclass anger of 2011 has gone but this time around expect a new edge to demands from the far left, targeting in particular disillusioned Labour supporters. The polls suggest significant dissatisfaction with the traditional parties but how that will play out in terms of actual voter support for independents and small parties is unclear. The Government will stand by its record, but perhaps it should consider a couple of sweeteners, which, given the buoyant state of the country’s finances, it can well afford.

The Government has made mistakes – Irish Water being a prime example. Few doubt the need for overhauling and modernising an antiquated water system to bring it into the Twenty First Century but the quango that is Irish Water proved a political disaster from the off, rallying and focussing discontent, especially on the left and seriously damaging Labour in particular. Its future may be up for grabs with several opposition parties already shouting for its abolition post- election. There is surely a strong political case for the Government to limit electoral damage pre-election by finding a way to fudge, with the promise of suspending domestic charges while the system’s chronic leaks are addressed, thus removing water as an election issue.

Secondly, there is the nation’s health. Here unfair and frankly immoral wrongs were done to the most vulnerable during the austerity years, ranging from cuts in home help and assistance to carers, deprival of discretionary medical cards and other associated cutbacks, all adversely affecting the quality of life of the many affected. These were done in preference to increasing taxes or cutting benefits elsewhere on those better able to cope. The money to remedy this is now there. What is required is a manifesto commitment by the Coalition parties to restore the 2007 situation in those areas by the end of this year. Whatever about any political gain this is the right thing to do.

Finally in June there are the UEFA soccer finals. Ireland qualified after emerging from a difficult group. The main scalp in qualification was world champion Germany, whom Ireland tied in Germany and defeated in Dublin. Four years ago a poor Ireland team were outclassed in the last UEFA finals. This time around we face world number one Belgium and the always difficult Italy. Yet both underperformed at the last World Cup and there is a rising feeling that Ireland could cause a shock or two. There are inevitable comparisons being drawn with World Cup 1990 when Ireland achieved heroics at a time when the economy was on the turn after a difficult time. Perhaps history will do a repeat?

18/12/15

A MILLION REFUGEES – AND MORE TO COME

2015 has seen much of the empty rhetoric surrounding the “ European Project” and the falsely labelled “European Union” put to the test and found wanting . As the year ends fissures are becoming evident which have the potential to derail the slow groping progress towards a federal Europe. One issue dominates.

Who now gives a second thought to Europe’s early 2015 preoccupation with Greek debt ? The Migrant Crisis – ongoing and threatening to get much worse in 2016 – has very much upset Europe’s applecart and now occupies centre stage with its separate elements of the numbers and types involved, the destinations actual and desired, the disarray and disagreement over burden sharing between countries and the dark spectacle of a terrorist threat.

A million plus people have flooded into Europe in 2015, most in the second half of the year. I wrote in my June column “ Europe’s Rio Grande,” about the rising flood of migrants along the traditional route into Europe, across the Mediterranean to the Italian islands via traffickers operating leaky vessels from the Libyan coast. Even then this route was being supplanted big time by a new wave of migrants, many from war-torn Syria and Iraq, arriving on the Greek islands of the Eastern Mediterranean after making the shorter and less perilous sea journey from Turkey. What started as a trickle became a torrent within a few short weeks.

As with the USA there is constant migration into and out of Europe. Much of it is legal and regulated. But a lot isn’t, representing the efforts of desperate people, overwhelmingly poor, simply born in the wrong place, to gain access to the zone of prosperity, peace and stability represented by the First World.

There IS an avenue in, sanctioned by the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, which guarantees sanctuary to those fleeing political or social upheaval or a well-founded fear of persecution. For some, claiming asylum is relatively straightforward and easily established. For many others verifying the claim can be lengthy and complicated, with some left for years in residential limbo, their circumstances and opportunities limited. The convenient collective name for these is “Asylum Seekers.”

Others will simply never meet the criteria and, are dubbed, again for convenience, “Economic Migrants.” In practice this has become a pejorative term confined to people from the Third World trying to enter the First World but lacking the qualifying criteria for political asylum. Thus the undocumented crossing the Rio Grande into the USA, plus many of the Africans and Asians seeking to enter Europe by whatever route.

And there’s the rub. Economic Migrants ( which includes those refused political asylum) have no rights of residence and are liable to be deported at the individual whim of countries. In practice most have been allowed to stay up to now for one or other humanitarian reason. In some countries – like the USA – it’s having a child a citizen; in others it could be family circumstances, or hardship, or what could await at home, or even demographic factors producing a local demand for immigrants. Worldwide the system is a mess, with lines blurred and inconsistencies in plenty.

But here’s the other rub. Most of the current Asylum Seekers or Economic Migrants arriving at Europe’s borders are not just poor but of different racial, religious or cultural backgrounds to the Europeans. A process of adjustment is needed on both sides. The balance is a delicate one and, as the numbers of immigrants have risen, so also has opposition, particularly in Northern Europe, manifested by sporadic attacks on immigrants and the rise of political parties opposed to immigration. Think the “Know Nothings” of the 1840s transmuted to a European canvas. To their credit the mainstream political parties have held the line – until now.

Enter 2015. One million migrants should be easily manageable in an EU of 500 million ( Ireland, for example, absorbed 45,000 in five years at the turn of the Millennium). However, the million has arrived in four months, is adding to migrant numbers already here and has impacted disproportionately on several countries, with only token burden sharing, so that Germany, Sweden, Italy and Greece are struggling to cope. Moreover there are forecasts of three times as many preparing to come, with fears that Europe may close its doors adding to the migrant surge.

Refugee children trying to enter Europe have been drowning by the score in the Mediterranean for years with token sympathy but not much else. However, the striking images of a drowned toddler washed up on a Greek island in September provoked a qualitatively different reaction, coming hard on footage of an abandoned truck off an Austrian motorway containing seventy one suffocated migrants.

A wave of sympathy and desire to help surged through European public opinion, one which continued and intensified as the boats arrived on islands like Kos and Lesbos, disgorging tens of thousands, including many whole families, all claiming to be fleeing war and persecution, from the Middle East, Eritrea and Afghanistan. Their destinations of preference were Germany and Sweden, both countries with a reputation for welcoming refugees (not wholly altruistic – Germany needs immigrants to bolster its numerically declining workforce) .
When Germany declared it would accept all refugees from Syria, and the responsible Government Minister suggested that 800,000 could arrive in 2015, the flows intensified and are continuing as I write, often exceeding 10,000 a day. Stunning daily TV coverage showed thousands on the march to Germany via Greece, through the Balkans, Hungary and Austria, bypassing, incidentally, EU border controls at entry.
As the transit countries tried to cope separately with the multitudes passing through, Hungary was the first to break ranks, building a fence to regulate entry and exclude migrants. As Germany filled up, with officials struggling to manage the flow, bottlenecks built up elsewhere with border controls reintroduced within the theoretically borderless Schengen zone . Sweden faces 190,000 new arrivals this year, in a country of under ten million. The latest arrivals are being housed in tents as winter beckons.

Public sympathy for the migrants, while still considerable, has begun to ebb, amid suspicions that a large percentage are economic migrants rather than refugees and fears that unregulated entry may have allowed some terrorists in. With no end in sight there is also growing public concern at how to absorb and cater for possible future flows on top of coping with those already arrived. Attempts to agree burden sharing among European countries have met with very limited success.

Ireland will take 4,000 over time, Britain 20,000. Several countries have refused to take any or to take any non-Christians. Collectively and nationally Europe is in disarray, with friction developing between neighbours. The European Union is nonplussed on the issue of what to do, with no consensus in sight beyond suggestions that that those found to be economic migrants be rapidly deported.

And still they come. I wrote last June that, in the age of the smart phone and the internet, the world’s poor and less privileged were not going to remain spectators at the feast, particularly those just outside the banqueting hall. They want in. This is now happening. 2016 promises to be interesting.

19/11

THE FINAL THROW OF THE DICE?

Two tragedies, next year’s budget and uncertainty over the general election date made for an interesting time politically in October. The tragedies in particular brought into focus the fact that there is more to life than politics and economics.

The first was a disastrous fire at a Traveller halting site in south Dublin which claimed the lives of eleven, including some very young children. Public shock at the deplorable living conditions at the site was compounded several days later when a proposed temporary halting site nearby to house those rendered “homeless” by the tragedy was opposed by local residents, who, as I write, continue to block access.

There can be few not already aware of the living conditions of many Travellers, with the attendant implications for social disadvantage; it remains to be seen whether these deaths will prompt remedial action. The stance of the local residents underlines that NIMBYism is alive and well and flourishing in Ireland; and that will be a tough nut to crack. One protester remarked that he didn’t see many hands raised to have Travellers living nearby .

The next day an unarmed Garda was shot dead by a republican dissident when answering a domestic incident in Omeath, near the Border. The murderer used a Glock pistol and critically wounded his partner before killing himself. It transpired that he was out on bail charged with IRA membership. The murder caused outrage and raised questions about the granting of bail, the adequacy of protection for what remains an unarmed police force and the adequacy of policing in Border areas where guns are plentiful and smuggling and organised crime by paramilitaries endemic.

Both issues, writ on a national scale, are likely to be among those to be aired during the forthcoming general election campaign. Lobby groups for the homeless have been pointing up the growing homeless crisis around Dublin in particular, with hundreds, including families with children, housed – at public expense – in temporary accommodation like hotels and guest houses, the situation created by a lack of affordable housing. Add in the inadequacy of accommodation available to Travellers, the meagre quantity of new housing under construction and planned and the anticipated arrival of more refugees and asylum seekers and the whole issue of housing is likely to generate much political heat, and many political promises, this side of the election.

Crime will also feature on the doorsteps. The inexorable rise in, and growing savagery of, burglaries by gangs operating across the country – an unforeseen curse of an expanding motorway network – has generated considerable public disquiet. October’s budget has promised more police – an essential – but there remains considerable public dissatisfaction over both the easy availability of bail and the leniency of sentences handed down to those found guilty There is also a perceived need to tackle as a priority organised crime in border areas.

It remains to be seen, however, what impact either issue will have in terms of swaying voters in an election likely to be dominated by mundane bread and butter issues like jobs, taxes and disposable income.

The General Election is set for the New Year, probably late February or early March. Yet for several weeks speculation was rife that it might take place this November. Speculation began when a mid-September poll showed Fine Gael at 28%, back at its support level of six months before, and Labour at last back in double figures at 10%. These figures were still well short of those needed to gain re-election, with Labour in particular lagging at half its 2011 support. However with Fine Gael support at 75% of its 2011 figure, and seemingly steady, and with the promise of a giveaway budget to come, noises began to emanate from Fine Gael to the effect that it might be better to go early, soon after the budget, lest some banana skin crop up over the winter, even if this meant cutting Labour adrift.

The curious logic behind this was that Labour were unlikely to improve very much before March – if they did it would be a bonus – that opposition parties would be wrong-footed ( waiting until March gave them five months to prepare), and that in the aftermath of a giveaway budget Fine Gael would be able to set the election agenda, concentrating heavily on the achievement of turning the economy around and the need for continued stable government. Given there appeared no realistic alternative government, the expectation was, presumably, that even a reduced Fine Gael, combined with a reduced Labour – which had nowhere else to go – plus one or two of the newer smaller parties and/or amenable independents would be enough to win.

Even more curious was the belief, underpinning this, that, with the economic indicators all positive, and rising employment to boot, the electorate would recognise, appreciate and reward the government for the economic recovery. Ministers, Backbenchers and Candidates suddenly appeared in the media parroting the line of recovery and stability. The Taoiseach, heretofore firm that the Government would run its full term, seemed to equivocate. There was consternation in Labour, which wanted to hang on in the hope of regaining some support after a post budget boost and which appeared to be edging towards some form of (mutually beneficial) voting pact with Fine Gael. The bookies priced a November poll at 3 to 1 on.

There was much wishful thinking here. Voters may want stability. They may see signs of recovery. But they are not stupid. The Irish reality is that virtually nobody earning under €60,000 gross has felt economic recovery in the form of more disposable income. This category includes most of the ordinary punters. To go for an election before the benefits from a giveaway budget are actually felt in people’s pockets bears out the capacity for politicians to self-delude, particularly if they are comfortably off and cocooned from reality. Then, for whatever reason, a dawning of reality, wiser counselling ,or pressure from Labour, the Taoiseach had a rethink and backed off. The election will be in 2016.

The Budget days later was virtually anticlimactic. Most of it had been leaked beforehand. There was something for everyone, including a major cut in the Universal Social Charge levy, and small hikes in state pensions and child benefit. After years of taking,“ for this relief much thanks.” The benefits to come into effect on New Year’s Day, apart that is from the one bit of bad news, a 50 cent hike in cigarette prices, effective immediately. That cigarette price rise may ultimately boost public health; in the short term it will certainly boost the already considerable cross-border smuggling trade.

The country is now in election mode, with a lengthy campaign ahead. For the moment the initiative is with the Government, the strain between the partner parties gone and the opposition somewhat in disarray. This may change. Irish Water remains a festering sore. A crisis unforeseen may blow up. But not so far. A telling sign perhaps was that, for the first time in years, there were no protests outside the Dail on Budget Day. The Government can now definitely set the election agenda. Stability anyone? Re-election anyone?

20/10

TO BE A TAOISEACH: HAUGHEY PART II: THE FIRST  ADMINISTRATION

It is virtually impossible at this distance of thirty plus years to view Haughey’s first administration other than through the prism of the later revelations about his finances. At the very  time  he was lecturing the nation about belt-tightening and living “away beyond our means” he had by 1980 clocked up a staggering  debt of IR£1.14 million to his bank. This was partially written off by the bank and the rest paid by a property developer friend. These and the other revelations about Haughey’s unorthodox finances for the most part only emerged  much later after he had departed office.  However, much was rumoured and suspected at the time and dogged journalists were uncovering the truth.

Haughey’s first term as Taoiseach lasted for just over eighteen months. It was marked by the continuing downward spiral of the Irish economy but will be remembered most for the Hunger Strikes in the North and, domestically and close to home, by the tragic “Stardust” disco fire disaster which killed 48 young people on Valentine’s Night 1981 in the heart of Haughey’s own constituency.  Hopes (and fears)  that Haughey would take some major initiative on the North proved unfounded and indeed an attempt to oversell the one concrete achievement – the significance and outcome of the Anglo-Irish Summit of December 1980 – received a rebuff from London and served to sour permanently relations between Haughey and Thatcher.

Apologists for Haughey often claim that he was “unlucky” from the off, pointing inter alia to the veto defeated rival Colley held over several cabinet posts. Yet this was hardly decisive; Haughey was where he wanted to be – top dog – and he set about cultivating immediately a presidential style . The Taoiseach’s Department was expanded in numbers and power.

Certainly Haughey took over half way – at best – from the worst government the country had seen in a generation. However he was part of that government – which had shamelessly and ruinously bought the 1977 election – and cannot totally dodge responsibility for its excesses.  The only mitigation for the policies and performance of that government  is that it was elected by over 50% of those voting and therefore had the mother of all mandates ( as De Maistre put it ” every nation gets the government it deserves”).

By mid-1979 and following, among other bitter labour disputes, a disastrous 18 week postal and phone strike, that  mandate was in shreds and Lynch only kept his backbenchers under control  temporarily by pointing to the fact that the next Dail would have 18 more seats, greatly increasing the chances that they would save their political skins. Haughey took over with considerable good will from neutrals who had high hopes that his political and economic acumen would halt the economic slide and political paralysis. The “away beyond our means” speech fed that optimism.

As 1980 unfolded that optimism dissipated. Haughey, like many politicians before and since, discovered that making tough decisions was not easy, particularly with even a distant election clock ticking. The necessary difficult decisions were ducked. A giveaway budget was an early indication. Generous pay settlements in the public and private sector underlined the trend. Far from reducing borrowing as he had signalled, borrowing increased dramatically, as, indeed, did taxation. It was essentially more of the same ragbag from Fianna Fail , with Haughey declaring that to curb or cut spending would be unacceptable.

With the luxury  of hindsight, particularly Haughey’s record  after 1987, when he DID supervise a programme of savage cuts in spending, stabilising a collapsing economy  and setting the foundations for recovery, the question arises why didn’t he do it in 1980? His apologists argue that he hadn’t enough time. That indeed may have been an element, but  Haughey had waited a long time for power and proved reluctant to do anything that might jeopardise his position. Allied to that was his clear populist streak, demonstrated in his spell in the 1960s as Finance Minister. Ultimately he preferred  being  well-liked by the public  to being tough. By contrast, in 1987 he had a metaphorical gun to his head.

Much had also been expected on the North and at first Haughey did not disappoint, declaring Northern Ireland a “failed political entity” in his first Ard Fheis speech and following up with a high profile meeting with Margaret Thatcher in London in May. It was at this meeting that Haughey reportedly remarked that while no Taoiseach would be remembered for fixing Ireland’s economic problems, the one who solved the North would go down in history.

The next meeting between the two in Dublin Castle in December 1980 saw the high power British delegation  include the Foreign Secretary and Chancellor as well as the Northern Ireland Secretary. It is sometimes overlooked that the historic meeting  one of the first dedicated bilateral meeting between premiers in Dublin since Irish independence  – took place against the background of an ongoing escalating IRA Hunger Strike (in its seventh week) , the continued IRA campaign (deaths at three per fortnight)and in the wake of yet another fruitless attempt by the British to kick-start internal political talks within Northern Ireland. For Haughey also the Republican threat was real; three Gardai had been murdered since July.

The joint communique issued afterwards  was strong on rhetoric, with references to the “further development of the unique relationship between the two countries.” It went on to signal that the “totality of relationships” would be considered in a series of joint studies on  a wide range of subjects. Arguably Haughey had moved matters forward significantly. Ireland and Britain seemed on the same page  regarding future cooperation.

However, Haughey then proceeded to oversell the rhetoric by describing the meeting as historic and hinting that everything was now on the table, including the constitutional position of the North. Thatcher took public umbrage at  this, denying that constitutional issues had been discussed. Relations between the two never recovered. Nevertheless the Summit, and all it implied, was an important milestone on the way to the 1985 Anglo Irish Agreement, which included acceptance by the British that Dublin had to be  involved in  any Northern solution.

Then 1981. Haughey could have delayed an election until mid-1982, but instead resolved to go in the Spring of 1981, when he  judged his prospects to be optimum and the polls favourable.  The game plan was to announce the election at Fianna Fail’s Ard Fheis in mid-February. But tragedy intervened in the form of the Stardust disaster. The Ard Fheis – and announcement – were cancelled and by the time the election was called in May, another issue had surfaced. Four IRA men had died in a renewed Hunger Strike, with more deaths expected.

The considerable public sympathy for the Strikers , particularly in the border areas, was skilfully harnessed  and channelled into votes. Two hunger strikers, who died subsequently, won election to the Dail. The  election result was one of woe for Haughey. Fianna Fail support dropped by 5% – admittedly from an artificial high -with the party losing five seats, down to 78, even in an enlarged Dail. Fine Gael by contrast gained twenty, rising to 65. The margin was tight but, with Labour support,  Garret was in and Haughey was out.

19/09