On a per-head basis, Ireland has a good claim to be the world’s most diplomatically powerful country. [The Economist, 18 July 2020]

Malcolm Redfellow

Moderator
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,933
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
The piece, How Ireland gets its way, discusses:
  • Ireland's political heft —
Every St Patrick’s day, Ireland’s ministers partake in a long-held Irish custom: they leave the country. Ministers are packed off to far-flung destinations to preach the virtues of the homeland. The prime minister always heads to America, but other bigwigs find themselves farther afield. In 2018 the housing minister was sent to South Korea, while the minister for higher education ended up in Oman. This year, as covid-19 raged through Europe and Irish politics stood still during coalition negotiations, things were scaled back. Only the trip to Washington went ahead. Ireland, a country of 5m people, had to settle for an audience with the president, a breakfast with the vice-president and a lunch with practically every senior member of Congress.
The chagrin there can be smelled a long, long way from SW1. Get over it, chaps: the End of Empire can be precisely dated, 23 June 2016. Remember David Cameron wanted to be Prime Minister because he thought he would be good at it.
Paschal Donohoe, last week won the race to become president of the Eurogroup, the influential club of euro-zone finance ministers, despite the French and German governments backing another candidate. In June Ireland won a seat on the UN Security Council, fending off Canada, another country often flattered by comparison with a bigger, sometimes boorish, neighbour. Barely a decade after a financial crisis saw Ireland bailed out, Philip Lane, the former head of Ireland’s central bank, is the main thinker at the European Central Bank. In Brussels, Ireland’s commissioner Philip Hogan is in charge of trade, one of the few briefs where the European Commission, rather than EU governments, is supreme. And the EU’s position on Brexit was shaped by Irish diplomats.
All true; and more of the same. In large part, a recognition of genuine talent. On the other hand, the UK, another ... bigger, sometimes boorish, neighbour, excludes itself, operates a Brexiteers-only selection criterion, nominates also-rans (why does Liam Fox come to mind?), or tits around for points an' ha'pence.

  • You knew this one was coming: the diaspora
Ireland has some natural advantages. A history of emigration blessed it with a huge diaspora in America, which unlike say the German diaspora, is vocal about its heritage. That ensures an audience in the White House and sway on Capitol Hill. It is a small, English-speaking country with diplomats able to focus on a few clear aims. A policy of neutrality helps it avoid unpopular military entanglement. Unlike most rich European countries, it carries no imperial baggage. Indeed, Ireland’s history as a victim of colonialism still provides a useful icebreaker with countries once coloured pink on Victorian maps.
No recognition of why the 'diaspora' happened: to do so would mean acknowledging the Great Famine, and Transportation, baggage all the way back to Cromwell and beyond. In truth, Ireland and the Irish (especially the Anglo-Irish) were totally complicit in British imperialism. We just learned not to talk about it.

Then come the other gripes:
  • Ireland somehow exploited EEC/EC largesse to become among the richest countries in the bloc. The UK, it is argued, contains seven or nine (depending on source) of the ten poorest regions of the EU. The UK, though, took a dim view of regional aid, even seeing it as a confession of national inadequacy.
  • Ireland is not one of the EU's Big Five, and has emerged as a natural leader for the smaller EU nations. Ireland, of course, cheats because it has an embassy in every EU country.
  • Ireland has been the perfect neo-liberal poster child:
Ireland was not always so influential. At the start of the decade, the country’s reputation was shot. A banking crisis led to an embarrassing €85bn bail-out. Rebuilding that reputation has been a decade-long task. Among the bail-out countries, Ireland became a star pupil, enacting reforms with almost masochistic relish, while other countries in a similar position complained. For a country whose prosperity is based on economic openness, foreign policy starts with economic policy.
We are, of course, reading The Economist, where realpolitik begins and ends in the national treasury. Which gives us the punch-line: all is not well in this best of all possible lives:

When it comes to tax, kind words about the Irish disappear. At 12.5%, its corporation tax is the second-lowest in the eu. Often companies do not pay even that. In 2016 the European Commission demanded that the Irish government collect €13bn in back-taxes from Apple. On July 15th the European Court of Justice annulled the decision. Ireland’s tax policy was legally vindicated (although its coffers were less full).
Odd, one might think, that The Economist complains about low regulation, low tax.

And then speculative vengeance:

Now plans are afoot to clamp down on unpopular tax policies using methods that would bypass this veto. The only way of stopping such proposals would be via an alliance of countries able to amass a blocking minority. It is lucky Ireland has skilled diplomats. It will need them.
There is something circular about the whole of this thesis. One reason why Ireland has been diplomatically successful is because we inherited a tradition of British expertise. Robert Erskine Childers went from being a House of Commons clerk to secretary of the Sinn Féin delegation at the Treaty negotiations. Joseph Walsh steered the Department of External Affairs from 1923 to 1946. Garret Fitzgerald, fluent Francophone, steered the entry into the EU. Éamon de Valera exploited international fora (notably the terminal League of Nations) to give a distinctive Irish voice; Seán MacBride, for all his many faults, continued in the same tradition. Conor Cruise O'Brien (yes: I number him in the song) was an effective operator in his days at the Department (one version is that he did the nasty on Charles Bewley).
 


shiel

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
19,585
Good article but what is this blaming the Irish for the famine and even Cromwell?

Despite the centuries of colonial exploitation and the difficulties of the early years of political 'freedom' we have been very lucky in the existence of the EU.

Since joining the EU we have got away from the dominance of the former colonial boss next door and have been making friends with many former colonial victims throughout Europe with whom we share many experiences.

Our recovery from the self inflicted calamity of the collapse a decade ago has been a miracle.

Look at Greece.

I am not as optimistic about the future.

A combination of Corona virus and no deal Brexit at Christmas will not do us any good.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
8,556
"Get along, get along, get along, Kid Charlemagne"
 

galteeman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
3,626
Joe Biden loves Ireland too.
 

ringobrodgar

Active member
Joined
Jul 7, 2020
Messages
122
The piece, How Ireland gets its way, discusses:
  • Ireland's political heft —
Every St Patrick’s day, Ireland’s ministers partake in a long-held Irish custom: they leave the country. Ministers are packed off to far-flung destinations to preach the virtues of the homeland. The prime minister always heads to America, but other bigwigs find themselves farther afield. In 2018 the housing minister was sent to South Korea, while the minister for higher education ended up in Oman. This year, as covid-19 raged through Europe and Irish politics stood still during coalition negotiations, things were scaled back. Only the trip to Washington went ahead. Ireland, a country of 5m people, had to settle for an audience with the president, a breakfast with the vice-president and a lunch with practically every senior member of Congress.
The chagrin there can be smelled a long, long way from SW1. Get over it, chaps: the End of Empire can be precisely dated, 23 June 2016. Remember David Cameron wanted to be Prime Minister because he thought he would be good at it.
Paschal Donohoe, last week won the race to become president of the Eurogroup, the influential club of euro-zone finance ministers, despite the French and German governments backing another candidate. In June Ireland won a seat on the UN Security Council, fending off Canada, another country often flattered by comparison with a bigger, sometimes boorish, neighbour. Barely a decade after a financial crisis saw Ireland bailed out, Philip Lane, the former head of Ireland’s central bank, is the main thinker at the European Central Bank. In Brussels, Ireland’s commissioner Philip Hogan is in charge of trade, one of the few briefs where the European Commission, rather than EU governments, is supreme. And the EU’s position on Brexit was shaped by Irish diplomats.
All true; and more of the same. In large part, a recognition of genuine talent. On the other hand, the UK, another ... bigger, sometimes boorish, neighbour, excludes itself, operates a Brexiteers-only selection criterion, nominates also-rans (why does Liam Fox come to mind?), or tits around for points an' ha'pence.

  • You knew this one was coming: the diaspora
Ireland has some natural advantages. A history of emigration blessed it with a huge diaspora in America, which unlike say the German diaspora, is vocal about its heritage. That ensures an audience in the White House and sway on Capitol Hill. It is a small, English-speaking country with diplomats able to focus on a few clear aims. A policy of neutrality helps it avoid unpopular military entanglement. Unlike most rich European countries, it carries no imperial baggage. Indeed, Ireland’s history as a victim of colonialism still provides a useful icebreaker with countries once coloured pink on Victorian maps.
No recognition of why the 'diaspora' happened: to do so would mean acknowledging the Great Famine, and Transportation, baggage all the way back to Cromwell and beyond. In truth, Ireland and the Irish (especially the Anglo-Irish) were totally complicit in British imperialism. We just learned not to talk about it.

Then come the other gripes:
  • Ireland somehow exploited EEC/EC largesse to become among the richest countries in the bloc. The UK, it is argued, contains seven or nine (depending on source) of the ten poorest regions of the EU. The UK, though, took a dim view of regional aid, even seeing it as a confession of national inadequacy.
  • Ireland is not one of the EU's Big Five, and has emerged as a natural leader for the smaller EU nations. Ireland, of course, cheats because it has an embassy in every EU country.
  • Ireland has been the perfect neo-liberal poster child:
Ireland was not always so influential. At the start of the decade, the country’s reputation was shot. A banking crisis led to an embarrassing €85bn bail-out. Rebuilding that reputation has been a decade-long task. Among the bail-out countries, Ireland became a star pupil, enacting reforms with almost masochistic relish, while other countries in a similar position complained. For a country whose prosperity is based on economic openness, foreign policy starts with economic policy.
We are, of course, reading The Economist, where realpolitik begins and ends in the national treasury. Which gives us the punch-line: all is not well in this best of all possible lives:

When it comes to tax, kind words about the Irish disappear. At 12.5%, its corporation tax is the second-lowest in the eu. Often companies do not pay even that. In 2016 the European Commission demanded that the Irish government collect €13bn in back-taxes from Apple. On July 15th the European Court of Justice annulled the decision. Ireland’s tax policy was legally vindicated (although its coffers were less full).
Odd, one might think, that The Economist complains about low regulation, low tax.

And then speculative vengeance:

Now plans are afoot to clamp down on unpopular tax policies using methods that would bypass this veto. The only way of stopping such proposals would be via an alliance of countries able to amass a blocking minority. It is lucky Ireland has skilled diplomats. It will need them.
There is something circular about the whole of this thesis. One reason why Ireland has been diplomatically successful is because we inherited a tradition of British expertise. Robert Erskine Childers went from being a House of Commons clerk to secretary of the Sinn Féin delegation at the Treaty negotiations. Joseph Walsh steered the Department of External Affairs from 1923 to 1946. Garret Fitzgerald, fluent Francophone, steered the entry into the EU. Éamon de Valera exploited international fora (notably the terminal League of Nations) to give a distinctive Irish voice; Seán MacBride, for all his many faults, continued in the same tradition. Conor Cruise O'Brien (yes: I number him in the song) was an effective operator in his days at the Department (one version is that he did the nasty on Charles Bewley).
I'm actually put in mind of the time they moved the bust of Winston Churchill in the Whitehouse to a less prominent position there was diplomatic panic in England.
 

Hewson

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
10,166
Malcolm, you omit the influence Irish literature has had on our European friends. Yeats, O'Casey, Joyce, Beckett, Iris Murdoch and even Le Fanu have all made an immense contribution to raising the profile of their homeland in a positive way.

It isn't just about politics and the people who practise it, this country is rich in ways that has nothing to do with either finances or access to US presidents.
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Moderator
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,933
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
Malcolm, you omit the influence Irish literature has had on our European friends. Yeats, O'Casey, Joyce, Beckett, Iris Murdoch and even Le Fanu have all made an immense contribution to raising the profile of their homeland in a positive way.

It isn't just about politics and the people who practise it, this country is rich in ways that has nothing to do with either finances or access to US presidents.
Not forgetting what Abraham Stoker did for Romanian tourism and Leonard Wibberley for Grand Fenwick.
 

Hewson

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
10,166
Not forgetting what Abraham Stoker did for Romanian tourism and Leonard Wibberley for Grand Fenwick.

With both Wilde and Beckett residing on a permanent basis in Paris, France.
 

callas

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2012
Messages
5,343
With both Wilde and Beckett residing on a permanent basis in Paris, France.

Lets not forget our modern day rock star exiles and spokepeople for the nation.Special mention for that epitome of diplomacy, Mr Bob Geldof, who did his best to volley Brexit out of our path. And then there is that namesake of yours, who always gives his good voice to our service, from whatever country he is domiciled at the moment. Our cup doth persistently overfloweth....
 

neiphin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,146
Lets not forget our modern day rock star exiles and spokepeople for the nation.Special mention for that epitome of diplomacy, Mr Bob Geldof, who did his best to volley Brexit out of our path. And then there is that namesake of yours, who always gives his good voice to our service, from whatever country he is domiciled at the moment. Our cup doth persistently overfloweth....
1595201024518.jpeg
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
59,681
The pen is mightier than the sword.
 

galteeman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
3,626
Malcolm, you omit the influence Irish literature has had on our European friends. Yeats, O'Casey, Joyce, Beckett, Iris Murdoch and even Le Fanu have all made an immense contribution to raising the profile of their homeland in a positive way.

It isn't just about politics and the people who practise it, this country is rich in ways that has nothing to do with either finances or access to US presidents.
Nobody actually reads any of those writers.
 
Last edited:

galteeman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
3,626
The piece, How Ireland gets its way, discusses:
  • Ireland's political heft —
Every St Patrick’s day, Ireland’s ministers partake in a long-held Irish custom: they leave the country. Ministers are packed off to far-flung destinations to preach the virtues of the homeland. The prime minister always heads to America, but other bigwigs find themselves farther afield. In 2018 the housing minister was sent to South Korea, while the minister for higher education ended up in Oman. This year, as covid-19 raged through Europe and Irish politics stood still during coalition negotiations, things were scaled back. Only the trip to Washington went ahead. Ireland, a country of 5m people, had to settle for an audience with the president, a breakfast with the vice-president and a lunch with practically every senior member of Congress.
The chagrin there can be smelled a long, long way from SW1. Get over it, chaps: the End of Empire can be precisely dated, 23 June 2016. Remember David Cameron wanted to be Prime Minister because he thought he would be good at it.
Paschal Donohoe, last week won the race to become president of the Eurogroup, the influential club of euro-zone finance ministers, despite the French and German governments backing another candidate. In June Ireland won a seat on the UN Security Council, fending off Canada, another country often flattered by comparison with a bigger, sometimes boorish, neighbour. Barely a decade after a financial crisis saw Ireland bailed out, Philip Lane, the former head of Ireland’s central bank, is the main thinker at the European Central Bank. In Brussels, Ireland’s commissioner Philip Hogan is in charge of trade, one of the few briefs where the European Commission, rather than EU governments, is supreme. And the EU’s position on Brexit was shaped by Irish diplomats.
All true; and more of the same. In large part, a recognition of genuine talent. On the other hand, the UK, another ... bigger, sometimes boorish, neighbour, excludes itself, operates a Brexiteers-only selection criterion, nominates also-rans (why does Liam Fox come to mind?), or tits around for points an' ha'pence.

  • You knew this one was coming: the diaspora
Ireland has some natural advantages. A history of emigration blessed it with a huge diaspora in America, which unlike say the German diaspora, is vocal about its heritage. That ensures an audience in the White House and sway on Capitol Hill. It is a small, English-speaking country with diplomats able to focus on a few clear aims. A policy of neutrality helps it avoid unpopular military entanglement. Unlike most rich European countries, it carries no imperial baggage. Indeed, Ireland’s history as a victim of colonialism still provides a useful icebreaker with countries once coloured pink on Victorian maps.
No recognition of why the 'diaspora' happened: to do so would mean acknowledging the Great Famine, and Transportation, baggage all the way back to Cromwell and beyond. In truth, Ireland and the Irish (especially the Anglo-Irish) were totally complicit in British imperialism. We just learned not to talk about it.

Then come the other gripes:
  • Ireland somehow exploited EEC/EC largesse to become among the richest countries in the bloc. The UK, it is argued, contains seven or nine (depending on source) of the ten poorest regions of the EU. The UK, though, took a dim view of regional aid, even seeing it as a confession of national inadequacy.
  • Ireland is not one of the EU's Big Five, and has emerged as a natural leader for the smaller EU nations. Ireland, of course, cheats because it has an embassy in every EU country.
  • Ireland has been the perfect neo-liberal poster child:
Ireland was not always so influential. At the start of the decade, the country’s reputation was shot. A banking crisis led to an embarrassing €85bn bail-out. Rebuilding that reputation has been a decade-long task. Among the bail-out countries, Ireland became a star pupil, enacting reforms with almost masochistic relish, while other countries in a similar position complained. For a country whose prosperity is based on economic openness, foreign policy starts with economic policy.
We are, of course, reading The Economist, where realpolitik begins and ends in the national treasury. Which gives us the punch-line: all is not well in this best of all possible lives:

When it comes to tax, kind words about the Irish disappear. At 12.5%, its corporation tax is the second-lowest in the eu. Often companies do not pay even that. In 2016 the European Commission demanded that the Irish government collect €13bn in back-taxes from Apple. On July 15th the European Court of Justice annulled the decision. Ireland’s tax policy was legally vindicated (although its coffers were less full).
Odd, one might think, that The Economist complains about low regulation, low tax.

And then speculative vengeance:

Now plans are afoot to clamp down on unpopular tax policies using methods that would bypass this veto. The only way of stopping such proposals would be via an alliance of countries able to amass a blocking minority. It is lucky Ireland has skilled diplomats. It will need them.
There is something circular about the whole of this thesis. One reason why Ireland has been diplomatically successful is because we inherited a tradition of British expertise. Robert Erskine Childers went from being a House of Commons clerk to secretary of the Sinn Féin delegation at the Treaty negotiations. Joseph Walsh steered the Department of External Affairs from 1923 to 1946. Garret Fitzgerald, fluent Francophone, steered the entry into the EU. Éamon de Valera exploited international fora (notably the terminal League of Nations) to give a distinctive Irish voice; Seán MacBride, for all his many faults, continued in the same tradition. Conor Cruise O'Brien (yes: I number him in the song) was an effective operator in his days at the Department (one version is that he did the nasty on Charles Bewley).
Your attitude to the article is unfair and I suspect based on a pre-existing bias because the Economist was always anti Brexit and sympathetic to Ireland throughout the process so why would it have 'chagrin' or wish for 'vengeance' on Ireland? Why the hell should they mention the famine or Cromwell in an article about Ireland's diplomatic success?
 

shiel

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
19,585
Your attitude to the article is unfair and I suspect based on a pre-existing bias because the Economist was always anti Brexit and sympathetic to Ireland throughout the process so why would it have 'chagrin' or wish for 'vengeance' on Ireland? Why the hell should they mention the famine or Cromwell in an article about Ireland's diplomatic success?
Yeah I was amazed at the mention of the famine and Cromwell in the article.

Surely we are doing well in the present generation in despite the decisions made in London in relation to both the famine and Cromwell which resulted in many people dying on this island.
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Moderator
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,933
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
For clarification, and to those with comprehension issues, neither the Famine nor Cromwell appear in the Economist article.

It would not be proper to cut-and-paste the entire little essay, so I 'semi-fisked' it. Hence you had my running commentary, for better or worse.

Refer back to my original and you should find I picked up on the reference to the diaspora, and added:
No recognition of why the 'diaspora' happened: to do so would mean acknowledging the Great Famine, and Transportation, baggage all the way back to Cromwell and beyond. In truth, Ireland and the Irish (especially the Anglo-Irish) were totally complicit in British imperialism. We just learned not to talk about it.
By that I meant to suggest that:
  • the single greatest push-factor in Irish emigration to the Americas in the mid-nineteenth century was the 'Hungry Forties'. Elsewhere I have suggested the out-pouring was a geometric increase in emigration to the US. Remittances, a pull-factor, came from previous emigrants, so the process escalated. In short, a simple statistical progression. There was a far greater emigration to Liverpool and GB, but that is not relevant to The Economist thesis.
  • Transportation (I should have said 'penal transportation') was, as we all well appreciated, employed by Cromwell to deport prisoners, military ones from Durham Cathedral (the residue of prisoners from the Battle of Berwick), and all-and-sundry after Drogheda. Whether or not Cromwell was extrapolating from (e.g.) Elizabethan Vagrancy Acts is another matter. There were English Statutes of 1585 and 1593 (which explains my use of and beyond in the above) allowing the deportation of Jesuit priests, Popish recusants, and nonconformist secretaries — acts of mercy compared to martyrdom.
As for Ireland and the Irish (especially the Anglo-Irish) were totally complicit in British imperialism, that is another issue for another day. But I'll stand by it.
 

galteeman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
3,626

galteeman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
3,626
Yeah I was amazed at the mention of the famine and Cromwell in the article.

Surely we are doing well in the present generation in despite the decisions made in London in relation to both the famine and Cromwell which resulted in many people dying on this island.
Economist wrote a nice balanced article praising Ireland's diplomatic success and Malcolm portrayed it as a hostile and sniping article, bizarrely even accusing the paper of not acknowledging the famine and Cromwell.
Obviously he doesn't like the Economist!
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Moderator
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,933
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
Economist wrote a nice balanced article praising Ireland's diplomatic success and Malcolm portrayed it as a hostile and sniping article, bizarrely even accusing the paper of not acknowledging the famine and Cromwell.
Obviously he doesn't like the Economist!
Well, well: all in the mind of the reader.

Three small issues:
  • I am an admirer and constant reader of The Economist. It isn't always wholly reliable — for many years it had a strong bias against railways — but recent articles on Ireland have been sound, especially when not all filtered through the EU context.
  • This particular piece comes from the hand of 'Charlemagne', usually the pen-name for the Brussels correspondent, whom I believe to be Duncan Robinson, Brussels bureau chief.
  • I merely pointed up why Irish-Americans and German-Americans differ in their ancestral loyalties — which is relevant to the Charlemagne article. I don't understand why it is hostile and sniping to observe the basis for that history.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom