Two Fact Sheets from PANA

The Peace and Neutrality Alliance (PANA) was founded in 1996 to advocate the right of the Irish people to have their own independent foreign policy with positive neutrality as its key component, pursued through the United Nations. 

Set out below are two fact sheets on PANA's two core issues, opposing Irish participation in an EU army and the use of Shannon Airport by the US (or any other) army in breach of the Hague Convention. Neutral states cannot allow their territory to be used by other states as a transit point for their armed forces to or from wars.


FACTSHEET


The Road to the EU Army

“We need a true European Army to protect the continent - with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America.”

President Emmanuel Macron, Agence France-Presse, 7/11/2018

“There should be a true, real European Army” and “Called for qualified majority voting to replace unanimity on defence initiatives.”

Chancellor Angela Merkel, Politico, 14/11/18

“The CIA provided 53% of the finance for the European Movements in 1958.”

Daily Telegraph, 27/4/2017

The road to the creation of a European Union with its own army has its roots in the Cold War and has long been supported by the US and its NATO allies. This Factsheet outlines the major steps towards its formation and its links with NATO.


May 1945
The unconditional surrender of the German Nazi European Empire to the Allies, {the USA, USSR & the British Empire} and the start of the Cold War.

September 1948 
Establishment of the Western Union, which includes a common defence clause by Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the UK, later the Western European Union in 1954. 

April 1949 Foundation of NATO by the US and 11 European States with its common defence clause Article 5 and its commitment to first use of nuclear weapons. Greece & Turkey joined in 1952, West Germany in 1955, (leading to the formation of the USSR-dominated Warsaw Pact), Spain 1982.

The purported reasons for NATO’s formation was to deter an invasion by the USSR; prevent the rise of nationalist militarism; and encourage European political integration (NATO website).

May 1950
France proposed to pool French and West German coal and steel resources. May 9 now marks ‘Europe Day’.

June 1952 
Belgium, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg & the Netherlands establish the European Coal & Steel Community.

January 1958
The six countries establish the EEC with the clause ‘Ever Closer Union’.

January 1963
France vetoes UK membership of the EEC. The US had objected to Ireland’s membership because it was not in NATO when it was also considering joining the EEC.

January 1966
EEC agrees unanimity rule where vital national interests are at stake.

June 1966
France leaves the military structures of NATO because of the concerns over US domination and all foreign troops leave France.

January 1973
Denmark, Ireland and the UK formally join the EEC. The Norwegian people had, via a referendum, rejected a proposal to join. In the referendum on EEC membership held in 1972 the result was: Yes - 83%, No 17%. The Irish Government White Paper had said Irish Neutrality had not been affected.

July 1987
Single European Act comes into force mentioning a joint European Foreign Policy. In Ireland the Irish Supreme Court, in the Crotty Judgement, ruled that as power over Irish Foreign Policy was being transferred away from the Irish people, from whom all power derives (Article 6 of the Irish Constitution) there had to be a referendum. Ireland becomes unique in the EU, in that every time power is transferred from the Irish people to the EU there is a legal obligation to hold a referendum. Result of the referendum on ratification of the Single European Act was 70% yes, 30% no.

1988-1991 -
Collapse of the USSR. The disintegration of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact (March 1991) included promises to Russia by the USA that NATO (apart from East Germany which merged with West Germany) would not expand eastward.

The road to the creation of a European Union with its own Army has its roots in the Cold War and has long been supported by the US and its NATO allies. This Factsheet outlines the major steps towards its formation and its links with NATO.

1999-2017
Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Montenegro join NATO.

1999-2017
Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Estonia, Lithuania, Czech Republic Slovenia, North Macedonia, Cyprus and Malta join the EU.

November 1993
Denmark, by referendum, rejects the Maastricht Treaty and gains a number of legally binding Protocols. One significant protocol was that Denmark was excluded from joining the militarization of the EU before signing it.

December 1996
PANA is founded following a meeting in the Royal Marine Hotel, Dun Laoghaire. In every subsequent Treaty debate PANA has campaigned for a similar Protocol to be applied to Ireland. 

April 1997 Irish troops deployed on NATO-led missions in Europe.

March-June 1999
NATO war on Yugoslavia. Kosovo becomes a separate state. Major US/NATO base (Bondsteel) built in Kosovo.

1999
NATO’s Partnership for Peace founded. Ireland joins NATO’s PfP without a promised referendum.
May 1999

Amsterdam Treaty
PANA campaigned against the Amsterdam Treaty seeking to ensure a Protocol similar to that achieved by the Danes, to exclude Ireland from the militarization of the EU. Result 62% yes 38% no. PANA and affiliated groups dominated the No campaign.

2001/2 Nice Treaty I and Nice Treaty II
PANA again campaigns for a No vote on the same basis as Amsterdam and, in the first referendum, won with a 54% versus 46% result. In the second referendum the Nice Treaty was passed 63% to 37%.

February 2003 
Bill to enshrine Neutrality into the Constitution defeated in the Dáil by Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael alliance, despite the fact that over 150,000 marched against the Iraq war in Dublin and Belfast.

2001-2019
Shannon Airport. 
The Irish Government destroys the policy of neutrality (as set down in International Law through the 1907 Hague Convention) by allowing over three million US troops land in Ireland to take part in perpetual wars of the US.

July 2004
Ireland joins the newly established European Defense Agency.

2007-2019
EU Battle Groups
Ireland participates in the EU Battle Groups which are heavily armed military formations of 1,500-3,000 troops, operational for six months.

Two Battle Groups can operate at any one time and are able to go to war anywhere in the world with a mere 5-15 days’ notice. Each Battle Group needs nine back-up troops for every one soldier at war which aggregates out to a 50,000 strong EU army.

2001 – 2005
Draft European Constitution
The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was signed in Rome on October 29 2004, following planning which had gone on since December 2001.

However, in May 2005 the French people rejected the treaty by 55% to 45% on a referendum turnout of 69% and, in June, the Dutch people rejected the treaty by 61% to 39% on a turnout of 62%.

2007
Lisbon Treaty
After these referendum defeats the draft EU constitution was withdrawn and repackaged as the Lisbon Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty was adopted by EU heads of state in December 2007, but now, only in Ireland will the people decide the issue by referendum.

2008 - 2009
Lisbon Treaty Referendum
I & II
In June 2008 the Lisbon Treaty is defeated in the first referendum, 53.4% to 46.6%. 

In October 2009 the Lisbon Treaty is accepted, 67% to 33%, in a second referendum. 

In December 2009 the Lisbon Treaty enters force. 

The Lisbon Treaty: allows groups of EU states to establish Permanent Military Formations via PESCO; agrees Common Defence (war) provisions; creates an EU Foreign/Defence Minister with Foreign/Defence Department. This treaty provides the legal foundations of an EU Army for an EU Empire.

2011
War on Libya
NATO, led by the US/UK/France and with the involvement of fourteen other EU/NATO states plus Sweden, deliberately destroys Libya creating a massive refugee crisis in Europe and elsewhere.

2011-2019
War on Syria
The allies and US go to war with Syria, provide military equipment to terrorists, and the EU imposes an economic boycott, leading to another massive wave of refugees.

2013-2020
In 2013 Ireland joins the European Union Training Mission (EUTM) in Mali and not the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). In 2018 EUTM was again extended to at least May 2020. The government is now considering sending the elite Army Rangers Corps to Mali.

2017
Further EU Militarisation 
Ireland supports the establishment of Military HQ, signs up to PESCO, the European Defence Fund, and Operation Sophia. MEPs from Fine Gael vote to increase EU-wide military expenditure to 2% of GDP. In Ireland’s case this means an increase from 0.3% to 2% or, in money terms, an increase from €946 m to €3 billion.

From 2021 to 2027 a budget of €13Bn is proposed for EU military funding. There is another so-called ‘Peace Facility’ of €10.5 billion currently in the pipeline to provide weapons to non-EU countries. June 2018. The EU Parliament, including all Fine Gael members, vote 441-182 with 57 abstentions, to ensure that the EU and NATO act in a ‘truly coordinated’ manner. 

November 2018
European Military Intervention Force
Ten states, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the UK agree to establish an army, outside EU structures, to invade other countries.

2019
Ireland supports the EU/NATO Status of Forces Agreement

2019
Venezuela
The US and many EU states, including the UK, France, Spain and Ireland, in total contravention of international law, recognize Juan Guaido (who never even stood for President) as President of Venezuela. This powerful grouping has also imposed sanctions in preparation for supporting yet another war. The coming war on Venezuela is ensuring the EU becomes a global military force.



FACTSHEET  

US Military Operations and Shannon Airport
(Ireland)

“Part of the US military conveyor-belt of death”

Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector in Iraq speaking about Shannon Airport (July 2003)

“The use of Shannon Airport by the US military is directly linked with the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, a region that has been destabilised and devastated beyond recognition by US military activity.”

Mick Wallace TD, Dáil Éireann (October 2014)

“If Shannon was being used by any other group to cause the type of damage that the 2.25 million US troops that have passed through Shannon have caused, then the US would rightly identify it as a target.”

Dr Tom Clonan, Security Analyst, Ennis Court (February 2015) US Military Operations and Shannon Airport
22(Ireland)


August 1990
At the start of the Gulf War, civilian flights carrying US troops on their way to the Gulf were permitted to land at Shannon. This continued up to the end of February 1991. 

The war was waged by coalition forces from 35 nations, led by the US. It was in response to Iraq’s invasion and annexation of Kuwait.

October 2001
Following the passing of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1368 Taoiseach Bertie Ahern (Fianna Fail) conveyed to the US Secretary of State that normal conditions for overflight and landing of US military aircraft would be waived by Ireland. As a result, US troops were permitted to transit through Shannon on their way to Afghanistan. Resolution 1368 was intended to combat threats to international peace and security in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. The US misused it to claim legitimacy for its invasion of Afghanistan.

Despite a High Court ruling in Dubsky vs Government of Ireland that the military operation in Afghanistan could not be considered a war, the claim by President George W. Bush that the mission was “to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime” indicated otherwise. Irish support for unilateral US military action in Afghanistan at that time demonstrated a serious disregard for international institutions.

November 2001
The first protests at the use of Shannon Airport by US planes involved in the war in Afghanistan took place.

December 2002
A briefing document prepared by the security policy section of the Department of Foreign Affairs stated that foreign military aircraft were only permitted to use Irish airspace or landing facilities if they are unarmed and carry no arms, ammunition or explosives and do not engage in intelligence gathering.
This condition has been repeated by every government since.

January 2003
Minister for Foreign Affairs Brian Cowen (Fianna Fail) confirmed that Shannon was being used by the US military, and that troops travelling on civilian aircraft are “sometimes accompanied by their personal weapons”. These are military contracted aircraft and as such are technically not classified as
military aircraft.

The Minister also confirmed that US troops were permitted to wear uniforms in the transit areas of Irish airports.

February 2003
Approximately 100,000 people gathered in Dublin on 15th February to oppose the impending US led invasion of Iraq. As with Afghanistan, this further example of the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war has been widely criticised as lacking the authority of the UNSC and being in breach of international law.

The use of Shannon Airport as a stopover for US troops was a huge reason for the size of the Dublin march.

March 2003
Dáil Éireann effectively agreed to participate in the US invasion of Iraq by supporting the Government’s decision to maintain what it called “long standing arrangements for the overflight and landing of United States military aircraft”. This was misleading as such overflights and landing facilities were previously granted only on a very limited basis and were never intended for participation in war.

As the Bush administration was preparing to attack Iraq, it was becoming increasingly clear that it was doing so on the basis of flawed allegations against Saddam Hussein. These allegations had been challenged, and in some cases disproved, by the United Nations, European governments and even US
intelligence reports.

The erosion of Irish neutrality is inextricably linked to the daily use of Shannon Airport by the US military for almost two decades. It is effectively a forward operating base used to support their operations in the Middle East, with approximately three million US troops and their weapons, regular US Air Force/Navy cargo planes, and an unknown number of CIA extraordinary rendition flights passing through since 2002.

Two Articles of the Irish Constitution have been repeatedly and consistently undermined through this misuse of a civilian airport. Article 28.3.1 says war shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann (Irish Parliament). Article 29 affirms the State’s devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality, and its adherence to the principles of the peaceful settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination. Despite this, Shannon has provided direct support for ground offensives and bombing campaigns, and has been complicit in the deaths and displacement of millions of people.

April 2003
A High Court judgement in Horgan vs. An Taoiseach et al. stated that by allowing US troops to use Shannon Airport on their way to and from the war in Iraq, Ireland was in breach of the Hague Convention (V) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land. 

However, with regard to Article 28 of the Constitution, the ruling stated that the Court could not, without proof of quite exceptional circumstances, accept the contention that it should decide what constitutes participation in a war. 

2005
At its peak there were on average over 6,500 US troops a week plus their weapons passing through the Shannon Airport, as well as contracted cargo planes and other military aircraft.

April 2006
Amnesty International reported that US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) aircraft involved in extraordinary rendition had landed and refuelled at Shannon Airport repeatedly in the previous five years. Extraordinary rendition involved the forcible kidnapping of individuals by the US or its proxies, and their transfer to a secret prison in another State where they were tortured, with no recourse to the courts or to lawyers or to any protection of their human rights.

Two months later a Council of Europe report by Swiss Senator Dick Marty identified Ireland as one of 14 European states that colluded in rendition. The Government insisted that no prisoners passed through Shannon Airport on the rendition flights. The basis for such a claim is highly questionable given the lack of inspection of suspected rendition aircraft at the airport.

No investigation was undertaken by the government at the time, or by any Irish government since. They claimed to have diplomatic assurances from the US administration that Irish airports were not being used by the CIA for rendition flights. Despite a series of written requests from the Irish Human Rights
Commission these assurances were never produced.

July 2006
A group of 5 Catholic Workers known as the Pitstop Ploughshares who made their way into Shannon Airport and damaged a United States Navy C-40 transport aircraft in February 2003 were finally acquitted after 2 mistrials. They were acquitted on the basis that they were acting to save lives and
property in Iraq and Ireland.

January 2008
Local peace and human rights activist group Shannonwatch started monthly vigils at the airport to protest against its use by the US military. These have been running ever since.

September 2009
The Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin (Fianna Fail) confirmed that US officers of military rank are permanently based at Shannon Airport. Their role is to assist with the transit of US government or government-contracted flights carrying US government officials, civilian and military personnel and cargo through the airport. The arrangement was in operation since 2003 and was done without Oireachtas approval.

March 2010
At the annual presentation of shamrock to the US President by the Taoiseach Brian Cowan on St Patrick’s Day, President Barrack Obama thanked the Irish Government for allowing US troops to stop off at Shannon Airport on their way to and from Iraq and Afghanistan.

August 2012
Seventeen months after presenting two wheelbarrows of information to the Gardai (police), Shannonwatch received a brief half-page response that said “No evidence has been uncovered by the Gardai which indicate [sic] any alleged breach of Irish & International laws resulting from the transit of armed U.S. troops & CIA associated aircraft in connection with wars and military aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and in connection with unlawful detention and torture of prisoners at Guantanamo prison and elsewhere”.

The dismissal of a large volume of material outlining breaches of the laws of aviation, humanitarianism, human rights and neutrality at Shannon was a disappointing indictment of Irish complicity in US wars of aggression and occupation, particularly in the Middle East.

September 2013
A side-mounted 30mm cannon photographed on a United States Air Force (USAF) AC-130W Hercules turbo-prop aircraft at Shannon on Sept 5 was described by the Fine Gael/Labour government as an “administrative error”. The aircraft was specifically modified to include a precision strike package
for close air support missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The government continued to claim that US military aircraft landing at Shannon are unarmed and carry no arms, ammunition or explosives and do not engage in intelligence gathering.

Meanwhile a Red C poll commissioned by the Peace and Neutrality Alliance (PANA) found that 78% of Irish people support a policy of Irish neutrality.

July 2014
TDs Clare Daly and Mick Wallace were arrested at Shannon Airport after attempting to search two US military planes. In explaining why they took this action, Mick Wallace said because the authorities won’t search the planes to find out if there are weapons on board “people like us have to do it”.

2015
The official count of US troops that passed through Shannon Airport since 2002 exceeded 2.5 million. These troops were all on US military contracted aircraft operated by companies like Omni Air International. They did not include special operations forces on Hercules C-130 and other military transport aircraft passing through Shannon.

January 2017
Shannon (and Dublin) Airport began operating US President Trump’s ban on people from seven Muslim countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) entering the US. The ban breached international refugee law, which requires the international community to take in war refugees
on humanitarian grounds. 

US immigration preclearance facilities have been in operation at Dublin and Shannon airports for many years. As a result, Ireland is one of the few countries in the world where passengers travelling to the US can clear immigration at the point of departure rather than when they arrive in the country. On the advice of the Attorney General the government claimed that the Irish authorities had no jurisdiction over the implementation of the policies at US immigration pre-clearance facilities on Irish soil (despite the fact that they breached international law).

March 2019
Two members of Veterans for Peace, Ken Mayers and Tarak Kauff, were arrested after going onto the airfield at Shannon Airport to demand that the Gardai inspect a US military contracted plane believed to be carrying troops and weapons. After being detained in Limerick Prison for 11 days, their passports were confiscated by the State, forcing them to remain in Ireland without trial for over 8 months.

May 2019
In an exit poll conducted for RTÉ and TG4 during the local and European Parliament elections, 82% of voters polled said Ireland should remain a neutral country in all aspects.

March 2020
US troops transiting through Shannon Airport were directed to remain on board their aircraft as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nonetheless Omni Air International troop carriers continued to make regular stops at Shannon on their way to and from the US, the Middle East, and European countries including
Bulgaria and Poland. A new coalition government made up of Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and the Green Party continued to permit the US military to use Shannon Airport.

It is estimated that over 3 million US troops have gone through Shannon Airport since 2002. The exact figure is unknown as figures are only supplied for military contracted flights (technically classified as “civil”). Since these aircraft have the troop’s personal weapons on board, the flights must be given prior permission to land by the Minister for Transport. Permits must also be given for flights carrying weapons through Irish airspace.

The US military account for well over 90% of all flights requesting permits to carry munitions through Irish airspace and airports. In addition to the US troop
carriers using Shannon, aircraft operated directly by the US Air Force and Navy also land there. In 2017 the official figure forUS military aircraft landings at
Shannon was 402 (an average of more than one/day).

 Year/Number of troops through Shannon on military contracted planes/Permits issued for the carriage of munitions of war

2002/73,000 
2003/122,000 
2004/159,000 
2005/341,000 
2006/281,000 
2007/263,000/ 1495 
2008/256,000/1359 
2009 265,000/1276 
2010 229,000/1307 
2011 250,000/1382 
2012 101,108/807 
2013 69,840/693 
2014 55,405/584 
2015 63,549/812 
2016 48,648 813 
2017 60,968/919 
2018 93,852/1054 
2019 86,653/1075  

While it’s not possible to identify the number of deaths linked to troops and equipment that passed through Shannon this century, a November 2019 report by Professors Neta C. Crawford and Catherine Lutz of the Costs of War project estimated the number of direct war deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen post 9/11 as between 770,000 and 801,000. This does not include indirect deaths, such as those caused by loss of access to food and water, war-related disease, displacement, etc. The part played by Shannon Airport in the wars that caused these deaths is in direct contravention of the State’s claims to promote peace, stability and human rights.  

Shannonwatch 
Shannonwatch campaigns to end the US military use of Shannon Airport and to demand accountability for the airport’s complicity in human rights abuse and war. It opposes the participation of Ireland in all regional military alliances and structures, including those of the EU and NATO. It holds peace demonstrations at Shannon Airport on the second Sunday of every month from 2 to 3pm. Contact: Shannonwatch, PO Box 476, Limerick DSU, Dock Road, Limerick, Ireland Tel: (+353) (0)87 8225087 Email shannonwatch@gmail.com Website: www.shannonwatch.org. 

Peace and Neutrality Alliance
The Peace & Neutrality Alliance campaigns for the right of the Irish people to have their own independent foreign policy, with positive neutrality as a key component, pursued primarily through a reformed United Nations. Contact: PANA, Dalkey Business Centre, 17 Castle Street, Co. Dublin, Ireland, Tel: (+353) (0)1 2351512, Email: info@pana.ie, Website: www.pana.ie



Brexit

The British Establishment had a field day on Tuesday. With no legal basis whatever for their decision and not a shred of legislation to back them up (with the possible exception of the reference to the Bill of Rights), they got their revenge on the people who voted for Brexit. PM Johnson prorogued Parliament to keep it off his back for a few weeks (all governments and civil services long for the long summer recesses that keep these people out of their hair for a few months). He should not have done so but he used the British convention-based system (as Ronan McCrea describes it in his piece in the Irish Times yesterday British Parliament must use its restored powers) to pull a political stroke. Therein has always lain the strength and the weakness of the British political system. Not too many laws and other types of rules (e.g. constitutions) to keep lawyers busy and rich but a gentleman's agreement about how things are done. Well, there are very few gentlemen left. 

I have become less and less a fan of constitutions as I've got older, particularly as the number of constitutions of one kind or another has ballooned. We have our own Constitution, the EU has one (to which ours but not, reading between the lines, Germany's is subject). Since the 1960s, vested interests here have used our Constitution to get laws declared unconstitutional that were nothing of the sort, laws that were enacted by the Oireachtas and could only be amended by them. Then there is the European Court of Justice, which is not a court in any meaningful sense but an essential part of the European project. The British Supreme Court, however, has gone one better. They have identified breaches to a constitutional order that doesn't exist. Their decision was blatantly political.

There is also an increasing body of international law, which is used to force through grotesque changes in social policy in areas like abortion.

All Governments pull political strokes and are legally entitled to. The fact that they shouldn't is neither here nor there. Politics is an ugly business and the people who choose politics as a way of life, are, by and large, not the sort of people with whom one would want to be seen. Then again, politicians represent We the People and we are flawed too. The alternative to politics (as in laws made by parliaments or directly by the people but never by the courts) is civil war as the British might find out if they're not careful.

Ronan McCrea's piece (but not the headline, which is not his fault) is fair and balanced. Now that the British courts have plunged headlong into the political process they will pay a price. On way of balancing up their demarche of yesterday, however, would be if someone tested the constitutionality (under a system that doesn't have a constitution!) of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. That Act is much more egregious and damaging to British democracy than Johnson's decision to prorogue Parliament, which was a crude political stroke but in no way illegal.

Denis Staunton's piece, Victory for Corbyn but Labour splits on full display in Brighton, Irish Times, 23 September, reminds Tory Brexiters that if they want to get Brexit through this year they will need the help of Jeremy Corbyn. He is deemed the devil incarnate by all Tories but he isn't, and he is a skillful politician to boot. He has held the line for the people's vote (i.e. the referendum of 2016) despite very intense pressure from many of his parliamentary party colleagues, who are about as true to Labour values as Boris Johnson is.

Pat Leahy's piece in yesterday's Irish Times Pressure of no deal scenario eases slightly is also good. He is giving the appearance of being back on side (he must have been put under huge pressure from within the Iveagh House Bulletin aka the Irish Times) but by saying everything is on hold in terms of an Irish/EU concession on the backstop until the UK parliamentary arithmetic changes, he is making clear what every supporter of Brexit knows: the EU will do a deal on the backstop when there is a majority in the House of Commons for Brexit. That, however, will have to await a general election.

Kavanaugh - the revolutionary justice phase of the #MeToo movement has now ended


It is not an exaggeration to say that the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh by the United States Senate as a US Supreme Court justice is the equivalent of the defeat for Senator Joseph McCarthy in the McCarthy/US Army hearings (also before a US Senate committee) between April and June 1954. McCarthy was a political opportunist (and, if memory serves, a drunk), who, as everyone knows, exploited the anti-communist mania in the US after WW2. He terrorized people and destroyed lives and careers, including, famously, in Hollywood, and, until the US army stood up to him, got away with disgraceful and outrageous behaviour. Inevitably, someone will always come along and stand up to a bully. You would think that McCarthy would have known better than to take on the US army but he had already, if memory serves, destroyed the career of the US Secretary of State, General Marshall (of Marshall Plan fame). Marshall had been Eisenhower’s boss in WW2 and had helped his career but President Eisenhower didn’t lift a finger to help Marshall when McCarthy went after him. So, McCarthy thought he could do it again but he met his match in the hearings against the army and McCarthyism gradually faded away. It didn’t happen overnight but an ugly period in US history ended effectively after McCarthy lost a row with the US army.

Kavanaugh’s confirmation will, I think, turn out to be an event of similar importance to the McCarthy/Army Hearings. It was inevitable that the #MeToo movement, which is a revolution of sorts and an understandable one, would be accompanied by a period of revolutionary justice (no evidence of sexual misconduct needed). It was equally inevitable that the screaming screamers and the crazies would go too far. (They are now blaming white American women for Kavanaugh's nomination and saying that they should not marry "within the race" to preserve white domination. You couldn't make it up.) And it was inevitable that a major political party (in this case the Democrats, in the 1950s the Republicans) would jump on the bandwagon.

The #MeToo movement will continue, and with considerable justification. Women have the bit between their teeth and are not going to put up in the future with what they had to put up in the past. I don’t have a problem with that but after Saturday's vote an accusation will no longer be the same as evidence. It took a brave man and a savage contest to face down the bullying but from now on more people will. A university lecturer, who, say, gives a student a bad grade and is accused of a sexual assault will be more inclined to stand his ground as will a falsely accused priest and so on.

In time the Democrats will come to realize that kangaroo courts and revolutionary justice are no substitute for justice. Senate committees (and any venue, including universities, the church, business, etc. where these kinds of problems arise) will presumably sit down and look again at the rules they operate for dealing with accusations of sexual misconduct. To start with, the accusation against Kavanaugh should not have been entertained because it was known to the Democrats for weeks before they raised it. They waited until they thought that by raising it at the last minute they would derail the confirmation procedure. That sort of unscrupulous behaviour must be stamped out. Likewise, allegations should not be accepted unless accompanied by prime facie evidence to go with the accusation. An accusation is not evidence. You would think people would know that but at a time of hysteria people are liable to forget basic rules.

I hope Dr Ford, who may now face a difficult time, realizes how she was used by the Democrats and I hope others don’t allow the same thing to happen to them. Politics is, at times, a dirty business. Politicians are capable of behaving in a crude and cruel way and of generating casualties in pursuit of their aims. Ford will probably suffer more than Senator Dianne Feinstein, who is the wicked one here. Ford will hopefully realize that asserting her life had been destroyed, when, happily and plainly, it had not been, was never going to fool anyone. She acted badly and unwisely and made a fool of herself. That is what can happen to people who get tangled up with politics and don’t realize how dirty it can get.

There will be a lot of talk in the coming days about the backlash that will be faced by the Republicans in the mid-term elections. The opposite could be the case. A lot of women in the US were beginning to worry about what could happen to their husbands and their sons if the revolutionary justice of the #MeToo movement was not checked. The question being asked by many women in the US was that if a man of Kavanaugh’s eminence could be destroyed for political purposes could the same thing not happen to their husbands and sons? Very few people would be able to muster the support of the President of the United States and the majority party in the US Senate if they were accused of sexual misconduct. They could be (and many have been) crushed. The IT-style narrative is that the US was divided between (wicked) white males and the rest on the Kavanaugh nomination but I don’t believe that. So, we will see whether the confirmation results in the expected heavy defeat for the Republicans in the mid-term elections or if the scandal of the hearings and the behaviour of the Democrats changes things.

I hope Kavanaugh’s first overseas visit as a Supreme Court justice is to Ireland. Maybe an eminent lawyer or an eminent academic here will invite him to address the Bar Council or the L&H in UCD or the Hist in Trinity or some such. The screaming screamers (and the Irish Times) will no doubt demand that Kavanaugh be disinvited. Which might just wake people up to the bullying that is going on here.

Ruadhan MacCormaic’s article in Saturday's Irish Times is interesting and by the IT standards of recent days fairly balanced. He is right to say that the reputation of the US Supreme Court has suffered in recent years, particularly as a result of their decision to hand the Presidency to George W. Bush, the worst US President in our lifetimes and quite possibly ever. MacCormaic says that US Supreme Court judgments are not cited by courts outside the US nowadays. I can’t argue with that as I don’t know if they are or not but if Roe V Wade is re-opened by the US Supreme Court that will echo around the world. Which is why the Irish Times is so angry. They are in fact scared. Just as the rest of the world was beginning to think again about abortion we disgraced ourselves by inserting a right to abortion into the Constitution. The attempt to prevent Kavanaugh reaching the Supreme Court was all about Roe V Wade, and everybody knows that.


More haste less speed might be the right motto for Dublin City Council in future

Bob Geldof handed back his freedom of Dublin in a very ungracious way and the city council could not allow itself to be treated in that way. Although you mightn’t think it because of the way they behave, there is a dignity to government or there is meant to be. A meeting of the Government in Government Buildings is meant to be more formal and dignified than a meeting of the same group of people in a pub. Hence the formality around the event, the formality of the agenda and the preparation of the necessary documents, the building in which it takes place and so on. Form follows function, as they say, but form is also the way in which the seriousness of government is conveyed. It must be careful not to tip over into arrogance and aggrandizement but if the city’s highest honour is rudely thrown back in the city’s face (more or less literally) the city council can’t let it go.
Geldof and Bono would be better off tackling the real evil contributing to poverty and suffering in many parts of the world: the obscene level of spending on arms by the West much of which ends up in the deaths of very large numbers of people (although the “developed world” has recently experienced some blow back). They are, however, very careful not to "go there", as far as I can tell. A reduction of 3% in US defence spending would end world poverty, something that Geldof and Bono could publicize to good effect. I’m not sure, incidentally, that the good people of Ethiopia appreciated being patronized by Geldof and the rock world in 1985. There is another side to that story but I don’t think we ever heard it. 
  
There is an excessive number of prizes for everything nowadays - literary, film, drama, man of the year, freedom of the city, turnip grower of the year, etc. The Economy of Prestige (2005) by James F. English, one of the most important books on culture published in recent decades, is a study of the impact of prizes on literature. The number, nature and politics of literary prizes (which incidentally keep on growing and keep devaluing existing prizes) are now the key to literary success rather than talent. There are now so many books being published that authors know they must be on a prize list to be able to stand out from the crowd. Not surprisingly, the proliferation of prizes and their importance in determining the success or failure of a book is now influencing what people write and how they write. The prize culture is shifting the balance of power from publishers/editors/the world of literature (the sort of people who should determine what gets published) to (my old profession) bureaucrats, in this case the bureaucrats of the literary world. They might know their way around intrigue (always a useful skill) but might have the artistic sensibility of a sod of turf. I gather that some old hands – like the Nobel people – are very “iffy” about being dragged in to the tsunami that is now the world of prizes and keep their distance from all the prizes hoo haa in an attempt to avoid the devaluation of the Nobel Prize for Literature (which should be awarded three or four times a century – no more).

English’ book is superb but I doubt if you will find it referred to very often in literary magazines, newspapers, etc. It’s the old story: who guards the guardians? How can we curb the rivers of books, most of which didn’t need to come out of anyone’s pen, if the people whose job it is to guard against this – the media, the publishing industry, the public square essentially, have a vested interest in not curbing it?

To finish where I started: while I can understand why Dublin City Council might wish to award its highest honour to someone the Council believes to be of outstanding character, the devaluation of literary prizes is arguably being mirrored by the devaluation of other prizes/awards, including the award of the freedom of the city. Dublin City Council possibly rushed in where others would have waited a little longer only to subsequently find itself with egg on its face. I can't help feeling that there is an element of the city council promoting itself and Ireland's progressive values in making awards of this kind. If the city is progressive (and with its housing problems it is hard to make that case) such gestures are not necessary. If the city is not progressive awarding the freedom of the city won't fool anyone. And, as I say, it can end up with egg on its face. More haste less speed might be the motto for the city council in future.

Current Affairs: Trump and Jerusalem

Trump and Jerusalem

US religious fundamentalism has nothing to do with religion and never has had (although it has a lot to do with values). Most commentators forget (if they ever knew) that the original emigrants to America in the 17th century (who became the bedrock of the US' civic, political and religious culture) were English Puritans and the like. They, likewise, weren’t religious although no doubt they thought they were. They were radicals who wanted political rights to go with the new wealth being created from trade and pre-industrial development in England, which was largely a consequence of the closure of the monasteries in the previous century (which released a lot of capital for economic purposes) and slavery. Puritans and other religious radicals objected to Anglicanism. They wanted, say, their own bishops ostensibly for religious reasons but in fact because they rejected the King’s religious (and therefore) political control over their lives. The language of political radicalism (“one man one vote”) (“universal suffrage”) did, remarkably, exist in the 1640-1660 period of the English revolution (the most interesting period in English history) but only in the most advanced circles. Most people didn’t have access to the political language they wanted or, if they did, knew it would be certain death to use it so they resorted to religious language (the right to their own bishops, say) to make a political point. The King and the establishment knew exactly what they were talking about but, if they didn’t, they found out in the English civil war.

Religious fundamentalists in the US today are the descendants (political and in many cases literal) of the people who left England for America in the 17th century with the emigrants from the north of Ireland, who left in the 18th century, being more of the same. They, like their ancestors, continue to use religious language for political purposes and everyone knows it, including Trump.
Trump is accused of not being a politician but he is enough of a politician to know that by giving the religious fundamentalists something on Jerusalem he will keep them on side for 2020. What religious fundamentalists really believe in (and what the coded religious language they use is all about) is a set of values that include making a lot of money, keeping the US Judaeo-Christian ethos as the fundamental value system of the US [i.e. making sure WASPs continue to control the US] and keeping a certain distance from black America). At its essence, what they are worried about is losing control (political, economic, cultural, religious, etc.) of the country they stole from the native Americans. They won’t say it in plain language (a) because English 17th century political culture largely used religion rather than lay language to express its wishes and (b) because US political correctness rules out any form of plain speaking anyway but everyone knows what they want.

Moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is seen as a cynical move by Trump to keep his supporters on side. And it is. What the chattering classes haven’t realized, however (or won’t admit), is that Trump, like all heads of government, is capable of operating on many levels. It suits Trump, for many reasons, to let everyone say it is all about keeping the religious fundamentalists on side but Trump has progressive views on geopolitical issues, which I suspect (certainly hope) he has put aside for the moment. I believe that Trump wants to end perpetual wars for perpetual profits but he needs more time to get the military industrial complex (MIC) on side, including through his tax changes, which could rebuild America’s economic base, which is necessary to continue underpinning its military strength, before he challenges the MIC about their endless wars. Commentators in the past understood these kinds of subtleties in the way government behave but they don’t any longer. 

Trump almost certainly knows that by sending the US Embassy to Jerusalem (which, incidentally, he doesn’t have to do; all he has done is say that he is sending it to Jerusalem) he is killing off the two state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem, which means that a new solution must be sought – a one state solution (i.e. like post apartheid S. Africa but hopefully without the corruption). His decision is a potentially progressive one. I suspect Trump knows that but, all all good statesmen, is not saying so, at least not yet. 

From his body language, I suspect Netanyahy is not as comfortable with Trump's decision as he pretends. He must know that it signals the beginning of the end of the (fake) debate about the two state solution, which every  government knows the Israelis have killed off. However, through "cowardice and laziness" (as someone said to me the other day) most governments continue to promote it although they know it id dead in the water.

Channel 4 News acts as a spokesman for Ford

Channel 4 News led last night with a story by Ford that Brexit would cost the company $1bn a year. It might indeed. Their business correspondent, Siobhan Kennedy, demonstrated how Ford cars are partly made in Britain and are then shipped to Germany to be finished after which they come back to Britain as imports. All without any cost to the poor company because of EU membership (tariffs, etc. although they presumably pay for the transport of the half-made cars to Germany and for the transport of the completed vehicles back to the UK), whatever about the cost to the poor British manufacturing base. Kennedy also demonstrated how the components of the cars partly assembled in the UK come from various EU countries. As no doubt they do. All this, Ford says, would be put at risk by Brexit and the poor company would lose money. Did it not occur to Channel 4 News that it is not their job job to worry about a US multi-national company (or to speak for them) or that after Brexit the components might be made in Britain and the car assembled entirely in Britain? It was as stark an example of stakeholder capture as I have ever seen. No attempt to critique what Ford was saying. No comment from an opposing point of view. No attempt to see the plus side from the point of view of British manufacturing. Quite extraordinary.

It was a classic demonstration of the liberal media backing global capital: something that would have been far less likely thirty years ago. Except, of course, today’s “liberal” media are not liberal. They are about as liberal/left of centre as Harvey Weinstein is a genuine supporter of women’s rights. They are supporters of the new global ruling class, which has contempt for states, democracy, people and their rights. However, they continue to be portrayed as liberal.

Trump and Trump haters

Marian Finucane interviewed a Trump supporter, an Irishwoman living in Virginia, who is a member of the Virginia Women for Trump Group, on her RTE radio show this morning. The woman, a well-heeled Dubliner, by the sound of her, who is not a teenager and will have seen US Presidents come and go, was rational and reasonable. She was very conservative, as you would expect, intelligent and articulate. And well capable of arguing her case. I was particularly impressed by what she said about Trump and the widow of the army sergeant killed in action recently. She didn’t blame the widow for the row (fully empathizing with her grief, as Trump, in his blundering way, also tried to do) but was very critical of the Congresswoman for her involvement. Spot on. 

I think I heard her saying that Hilary Clinton won 58 counties in the Presidential election and Trump won 3,000 but I might have got that wrong. Ms. Finucane asked her about Trump’s tweets. Her response was that, before Trump, everyone was complaining about a lack of transparency in government. Trump uses Twitter, she said, to tell people what he thinks. True, but that doesn’t mean he always has to. A good leader keeps 90% of what is in his head to himself.
 
What was really interesting was the response of Ms. Finucane's panel when asked, by Marian, to comment on the woman’s views. The first member of the panel described the woman, to her face (as it were), as ignorant. She dealt with that. Another member of the panel said something even worse (I half missed it) forcing Ms. Finucane to step in and say “hold on a moment there”. It was vintage debate, Irish style – ignorant and intolerant although not by Marian, who did what an interviewer should do, ask the questions and let the interviewee answer without being insulted. Marian did say that the views the woman expressed are not normally heard on this side of the Atlantic, which is true. Some panelists extended the basic courtesy to the woman that is meant to be applied in debates but is absent where Trump is concerned (and indeed increasingly where elites are challenged). Trump is usually blamed for that but his opponents have matched him all the way. The intolerance of the elite is something we all have to live with whether it is forcing EU treaties down our throats whether we voted for them or not or coming up with parliamentary committees, whose decisions are made before they meet, to force through abortion. 

The arrogance and contempt of the US elite for ordinary people is what catapulted Trump into the White House (what will happen here, I wonder?) but there is no sign of the establishment here or anywhere else reflecting on that.

 

Pride comes before a fall

The Hollywood crowd should have spotted the omen at the last Oscars when Bonnie and Clyde made a mistake in announcing the winner of an Oscar. It followed an evening where they had all been having fun at Trump’s expense with Meryl Streep (who mistook Weinstein for God on another occasion) playing a central role. The lights went out at the Oscars, if I recall, that night, which should have been a signal to dial down the arrogance but they didn’t take the hint so now they have got fate’s response full on. Not to mention that a Hollywood actor doing anything other than acting is a complete bore. A bit like Bono .... [Memo to Streep and Bono: there is no law against silence and there is no law against keeping it simple when you do speak.]
 
It’s hard to say whether the Weinstein business will shut Hollywood up when it comes to lecturing Trump and the rest of us or whether it will all blow over in a week or two. There is no question of Hollywood and sex separating. If you take sex out of Hollywood you might as well take the cameras out too. Hollywood, like the theatre from which it emerged, is all about sex. However, a scapegoat is required every now and again, I suppose, and Weinstein fits the bill perfectly. I’d never heard of Weinstein until last week but he makes Trump look like a charming, handsome, JFK-type figure ....
 
I suspect that Weinstein is Jewish, which must have given the NYT a headache or two before they went to print. No doubt they will do a major piece shortly on a bad boy Catholic bishop to get Weinstein off the front page.

George Hook falls foul of McCarthyism

The case of George Hook is a classic case of someone falling foul of McCarthyism. He may be “colourful” but he is entitled to his opinion. The world is, to be blunt, over-sexed, hyper-sexed in fact, and the sex industry (all the way from suggestive photographs every Sunday on the cover of the SINDO magazine to hard core pornography) is now one of the world's most powerful industries. 

Once money – on a vast scale – becomes part of any industry it becomes a very powerful industry and very difficult to challenge. Anyone wishing to challenge the sex industry is going to have to be smarter than George Hook. They are going to have to find a way past the moral policemen of the Iveagh House Bulletin, Crown Forces Times and Whatever You’re Having Yourself Matrimonially- Speaking Newsletter. They are going to have to find a way of saying that the male of the species is like the male of any species - always looking for sexual encounters. They are going to have to find a way of saying that women need to be aware of the raw threat from the male of the species in how they comport themselves and in the situations they get into. That has implications for everything from fashion to film and from education to social life. We will have to wait for something to happen, some trigger that will allow rational argument back into the debate about the sexual mores of our time.
 

It’s a bit like Trump: the forces that Trump threatened (globalization, perpetual war for perpetual peace [profits], the abortion lobby) mobilized the world media industry to try to stop him. They failed but the military industrial complex and the secret state have – for the moment at any rate – crushed Trump’s efforts to re-engineer US foreign policy away from war-making and naked imperialism. By the same token, powerful vested interests are able to ensure that anyone who challenges the sex industry will be crushed. You would think that someone like Fintan O’Toole could spot that and see what Hook was trying to say in his muddled fashion but they don’t seem to be able to. Smart people are being manipulated by powerful forces and they don’t even know it. Plus, there is, I think, a natural urge to McCarthyism, a natural desire to seize any opportunity to silence the opposition if you can. All the better if you can dress your intolerance up as something else.

Brexit: British/Irish Relations (House of Lords Report)

There can be no question of people in Northern Ireland not retaining the right to Irish citizenship after Brexit so the House of Lords is wrong to even raise the issue. They obviously don’t realize that anyone born anywhere in the world with at least one Irish grandparent is entitled to Irish citizenship. That said, the House of Lords is telling the Department of Foreign Affairs that the Irish Government should not be running around Europe pleading for the right of people in Donegal to travel to Derry without a visa after Brexit. Apart from making fools of themselves, there is a risk of the Europeans (the other 26 Member States) stirring up trouble for both Britain and the Republic in terms of cross-border and east-west relations, trouble that the other 26 would not normally contemplate causing. They might, however, cause trouble in order to put pressure on the British Government in the Brexit talks or indeed on the Irish Government to leave the EU with the British.

It is possible that officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs are doing their best to stop Kenny and Flanagan running around Europe making fools of themselves. I don’t know but the House of Lords report will be seen by the Department (if not by their political masters) and by other foreign ministries, inside and outside the EU, as a telling off for the way Kenny and Flanagan are behaving. I have no doubt that the British Foreign Office will have urged the HoL to publish the report, and quickly (the first of five or six this week from the HoL), before Kenny and Flanagan do more damage. The weakness of both men is being shown up starkly. In the nature of these things, PM May can’t tell Kenny to stop making a fool of himself. It would also be difficult for the Foreign Office to say that to the Ambassador, even informally, but the message is coming through loud and clear in the report.

The House of Lords report will be seen by the other 26 Member States as a typical divide and conquer move by the British. There is truth in that but from our point of view divide and conquer is the right approach on this occasion.

The House of Lords report talks about any bilateral deal being approved by the EU after it has been agreed by Britain and Ireland. That is diplomatic-speak for telling the EU to take it or leave it. 

A very important report.

Housing Policy

With all the talk about mortgage rules, it was left to Colm McCarthy in yesterday's Sunday Independent to make the most important point of all: the failure of our housing policy is not down to the Central Bank but to the Department of the Environment, the planning authorities and their political masters. Although the Central Bank deserves criticism for the runaway chaos of the 00s, the principal failure down through the decades has been by the political system. As McCarthy said, housing policy is the responsibility of the Government, not of the Central Bank, but because of our dysfunctional political system the Central Bank has been asked to do the heavy lifting. It can't.

When was the last time the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Housing or any Minister told the public that the price of houses should remain stable in real terms? When have Ministers spoken about the need for housing policy to be set in a wider context of economic and social development, including climate change? When have Ministers told the public that urban sprawl and the waste of good farm land has to be brought to an end and that people will have to live in cities (not commute every morning from ever expanding suburbs). The energy cost, the carbon footprint and the damage done to the fabric of cities (not to mention the quality of life of commuters) demands a major change of approach.

The Irish approach to housing is well captured by the ESB advertisement about the young man heading home for Christmas, bring greeted at the bus station by his father and being driven home to his house in the countryside to be greeted by his mother. It is an experience many people can relate to but it is a lifestyle that will have to change. The idea that work and home should be in different places (even if the advertisement is probably about a student) must be challenged. The majority of the population will have to adjust to living in urban areas within walking or cycling distance of their place of work, or, at worst, a short journey by public transport from within the town or city limits. Children should walk to school or at best go by school bus. Parents should be strongly discouraged or, if necessary, forbidden by law to bring children to school by car (especially by SUV!).

Planning permission should be closely linked to issues of density, public transport, schools and other factors. The question of price controls will have to be considered, if only to deal with the problems of development. Whereas in the past a "good" area of a town or city was home to a wide range of middle class professions and activities, nowadays, in effect, only doctors, lawyers, accountants and financial services personnel can afford to live in certain areas and send their children to the perceived top schools. This not only creates resentment among, say, senior public servants and teachers it also discourages people from choosing a career in the public service or teaching. That, in turn, impacts on economic and social development in two ways: we will have too many doctors, lawyers, etc. (not all of them suited to those professions) and not enough good public servants, teachers, etc.

House prices and the belief throughout Irish society that housing is the route to (unearned) wealth is a deeply ingrained cultural trait in what is a very greedy society and it will not be easy to change. Not surprisingly, public representatives are not prepared to address the greed factor but they will have to sooner or later. House prices have had a huge impact on other areas of public policy, including pay demands and the capacity of the State to provide much needed services. The high cost of living is a result of the greedy nature of Irish society, which won't be successfully tackled until we have a functioning housing policy. Changing cultural habits like greed are of course a lot more difficult to effect than changing mortgage rules but because we have 100 TDs too many the political class won't even try. The problems are mounting up, however, right across virtually every area of public policy and the common denominator - the dysfunctional political system, which needs massive pruning - will have to be addressed.








Why Trump?

There is a great deal more to be said about the election and it will be a very long time before the fallout is complete. There are going to be consequences on many levels but the most urgent one has to be the economy. The media on this side of the Atlantic said that HC’s campaign was slick and that Trump’s gallop through some of the “marginal constituencies” like Pennsylvania in the last few days before the election was a sign of desperation. The opposite seems to have been the case. HC’s campaign appears to have been driven by identity politics, by the type of people who believe the main subject for discussion on university campuses should be genderless bathrooms, whereas Trump seems to have had a well organized campaign that listened to what ordinary citizens were saying. If HC had had any sense at all she would have broadly endorsed Trump’s approach to trade and globalization (not that many people would have believed her). If the Democratic Party does not move immediately to do so now (along the lies of Bernie Sanders) it could well be toast. There is room for a genuine left of centre party to replace the Democrats and to focus on the issues of concern to tens of millions of ordinary Americans. 

Politics is all about the haves and the havenots. The haves are always well represented. The havenots don’t usually get much of a look in but when the party that is supposed to represent them goes farther to the right than the candidate of the haves what else are the voters to do? You could argue that the US empire will have to be brought to an end before US politics can be reformed but assuming that reform is possible within the imperial structure the Democrats have to rediscover what a left of centre political party is about: ensuring that ordinary citizens have a decent job, a decent standard of living, decent healthcare, decent unemployment benefit when out of work, decent housing and so on. Trump took that ground, and in my view honestly so. The same thing happened in 1860 when Lincoln stole the progressive ground of the anti-slavery movement admittedly because the Republican Party wanted strong tariffs in the North and the Southern States didn’t so there was a natural alliance between the various wings of the Republican party that brought about the end of slavery. Nevertheless, Lincoln’s abhorrence of slavery was genuine and the honour of destroying slavery and the rotten social and economic system that underpinned it and benefited from it fell to the Republican Party. The same might happen in relation to excessive globalization. If Bernie Sanders had been selected by the Democrats he would have beaten Trump. He might indeed have beaten Trump and Clinton if he had opted to run. 

I’m not too bothered about Trump’s boorish behaviour. My guess is that he calculated that the only way he could channel the anger into votes was by turning up the volume. This was no ordinary election and if the US elite does not take heed of what happened who knows what will happen in the future. Trump also realized that after fifty years of PC (much of it justified certainly but it had gone way off the rails with the gender stuff and the bathrooms and university students wanting safe rooms) it was necessary to challenge it and challenge it aggressively. He was clearly right on both counts although it was ugly. It will now be up to him to turn down the volume.

There was a good article on the election in the NYT The End of Identity Liberalism by Mark Lilla, who is essentially saying that gender stuff and bathroom stuff has its place but front and centre: no. Anyone with any cop-on has been saying this right through the campaign but not HC’s people. Apparently, Bill Clinton tried to get this across to them but was told to button it. Apparently, he also told them not to ignore the Catholic vote but the latent anti-Catholicism of HC, a good WASP, came through. In many ways it was the mirror image of Trump’s attack on PC. Clinton and her people felt that they had a licence for good old fashioned Catholic-bashing dressed up as something else. They forgot that good old-fashioned Catholics have votes. HC’s arrogance and sense of entitlement to the Presidency let her down and her friends in the media, who should have warned her, didn’t.

Trump’s election will have an impact on feminism. There is now a divide between those who argue for women’s rights and those who argued that HC had a right to power because she is a woman. That was quite a leap for the sisterhood to make and it was important that she lose on that ground alone. If the sisterhood splits big time over this I would expect “approved” opinions about abortion among right-on types to start diverging too.

It remains to be seen if the military industrial complex and the secret state prevent Trump from making significant changes to US war policy, which, again, I suspect he genuinely wants to make. I suspect that he is opposed to the elite’s policy of perpetual war for perpetual profits for the arms industry (with the morons in the State Department and the satellite think tanks going along with them). It would be a brave man who would predict success for Trump there.

I sent a tweet to the actor who lectured Pence after a theatre performance asking the actor, Dixon, if he had lectured HC in the same patronizing way about her destabilizing of Libya. No response needless to say but I see some tweets coming through about Dixon urging black guys to have sex with white women on Paddy’s Day. If you are going to lecture the Vice President Elect you would be well to have a clean sheet yourself as, if you don’t, someone will dig up the dirt. That is what has happened to Dixon. I don’t expect the New York Times to lecture Dixon about his attitude to white women or a file to be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (as we say) but Dixon, who is an eejit, might come to regret his fifteen minutes of fame.

The Donald trumps Brexit

The election count was a close replica of Brexit night although it went on longer. The similarities indeed were uncanny. The "Sunderland" of last night was Ohio.Trump's win there suggested that a Trump victory was possible. Had he won Virginia as well, which he almost did, I would have got to bed a lot sooner than 7am! As it was, the US networks waited two hours or more to move Trump's electoral college votes from 244 to the 270s (bar one vote to 245). One doesn't want to get paranoid but 99% of the votes had been counted in Pennsylvania, I think, with Trump in the lead (and therefore over the 270 number) but, even though the New York Times had called it, the networks refused to do so for about two hours. I suspect that if Pennsylvania and Wisconsin had gone to Hilary Clinton the networks would have called the results in short order. Which goes to show that Trump's allegations of chicanery might not necessarily have been completely wide of the mark. There were postal votes to be counted in Pennsylvania (by hand, apparently, as opposed to electronically in some other states) but that doesn't explain the delay. I gather Trump was making his victory speech when Pennsylvania or Wisconsin came through and brought him over the top. He had clearly got fed up waiting for the networks.

Brexit is restated, confirmed, underlined and strengthened by Donald Trump's victory, and the euro is next. TTIP is for the bin and the future of the EU itself and NATO are now up in the air. It's impossible just now to take it all in or to know where the US and the world will go from here. The US Presidency is a far weaker institution than we think because of the separation of powers, and Donald Trump is as despised by almost as many Republican senators and Congressmen as Clinton, but like Brexit it's the vote that counts. For the second time in just over six months the people have misbehaved and refused to do as they were told. I don't say that the people are always right but they are always sovereign. It will take this victory to bring home to the Remainers in the UK that Brexit means Brexit.

It is no coincidence that the "revolution" bringing about the end of the post WW2 world began in the UK and the US (leaving aside the collapse of the USSR and communism). The UK and the US created the Western dimension of the post war world. They also pushed more than anyone else (with our elite following them without giving it a second thought) for a world of excessive globalization, including in the financial services area. The Big Bang in the UK in 1985 and Larry Summers' disastrous legislation in the US in the 1990s set the scene for the loss of any control of capital movements, which underlie a lot of the problems since. The mad euro experiment of course deserves to be up there also, which is why the euro will be next to feel the wind of change. NAFTA contributed significantly to Trump's victory. I was exchanging tweets at around 6am with a well known economist who felt that globalization had its merits but said that "the corporate interests unchecked fest at society's expense is the problem". Exactly. Where to draw the line between free trade and the rights and responsibilities of governments to govern their territories and protect the interests of their people is the issue: the near total stakeholder capture of Western governments (in this case the US) by global interests is the underlying reason for Donald Trump's victory.

The number crunchers of course were at it all night. More women voted for Donald Trump than were expected to and fewer Latinos voted for Hilary Clinton than we were told was the case. (I'm not surprised in either case. Why would women vote for somebody shady just because she is a woman or Latinos not be able to understand that states must have borders and rules about immigration?) There is no doubt that playing the hyphenated game was a bad tactic for Hilary Clinton. Truth to tell, she might have had no choice but some of her rallies gave the impression of a Tree Huggers for Clinton event. The Democratic Party needs to get away from giving the impression that it is the hyphenated Americans party and get back to being a left of centre party, e.g. ditch NAFTA. (Donald Trump should seek to reverse the increasing balkanization of the US. The most interesting Americans I've ever met have been ... Americans. Hyphenated Americans tend to be less interesting.) It will be interesting to see if the Democrats work that out. I enjoyed the piece by Brian Boyd in Tuesday's Irish Times in which he pointed out that seeking support from rock stars and the like doesn't work. (Speaking of celebrities, where has Bono been? How have we been so lucky!) The article refers to one individual, who, in 2004, particularly resented the fact that Bruce Springsteen, whom the individual correctly described as a song and dance man, urged people to vote for Kerry in that year's Presidential election. I love the Boss and he was right on that occasion but perhaps another consequence of the revolution is that the age of celebrity might be coming to an end. Donald Trump was one but the end of celebrity could be one of the unintended consequences of his victory.

The media has been the stand-out performer in this campaign but for all the wrong reasons. With some fine exceptions, they did everything they could to create the impression that Hilary Clinton was the better candidate and was home and hosed. I don't necessarily blame the polling companies. I can understand how people would be reluctant to say how they intended to vote. No doubt many people kept their heads down at work and among their friends and then quietly voted for Donald Trump. The Clintons' checkered history finally caught up with them. The media did everything they could to down play the pay-for-play strategy of the Clintons but they couldn't bury it. I suspect, however, that the debates ultimately turned the table. I saw part of the first one and all of the second and third ones. Donald Trump improved with every debate while Hilary Clinton failed to get her vision across (although she did to the global elite and the media, who understood that she was their woman). I noticed, particularly after the third debate, that good journalists could not run away from their consciences and started, ever so gingerly, to point out that Donald Trump was developing into something but that Hilary Clinton was standing still. I thought Donald Trump had left it too late to begin to display the necessary political skills but he hadn't. He had to trod a fine line between the angry revolutionary and behaving like a civilized human being. I thought he had got the balance wrong but he obviously hadn't.

The Canadian immigration website crashed during election night. Shades of UK citizens looking for Irish passports after the Brexit referendum. Silly.

It will obviously take some months to see how Donald Trump seeks to turn his victory into significant new policy directions. My first reaction is to breathe a sigh of relief that the world won't be a heap of ashes four years from now. The risk of nuclear war with Russia had Hilary Clinton won would have been very high. Assuming Donald Trump can get the support of the Congress for his measures (which is a huge assumption), if he reduces US corporation tax to 15% that will have a huge impact on the US and global economy. It will oblige this state to move away from Whitaker Economics. I don't underestimate the challenge involved but we have to face the future as well. I hope Donald Trump will instigate a massive renewal of US infrastructure and he should tackle education as well. Hopefully, he will also restructure the Supreme Court and that important social issues like abortion and surrogacy will be addressed. And I hope, he finds a way of keeping the Second Amendment while tackling the US gun culture that has always been a feature of US society but particularly since the end of the US Civil War. Sales of post Civil War surplus weapons gave that culture a boost from which US society has never recovered.

Donald Trump's Cabinet appointments will tell us a lot about his plans for the Presidency. Will he appoint heavy hitters to the economic ministries (and get rid of Janet Yellen, if he can) and lesser figures to State and Defence? Having a businessman in the White House is a huge plus. Will he challenge the military industrial complex, which is consuming (morality aside) far too many resources, resources that the US could spare in the 1950s-1970s but not today? Will he go for the best Cabinet he can and forget the gender balance/must have some gays nonsense?

Clinton V Trump

Jeremy Paxman said on the Late Late Show on Friday night that if he had a vote he would vote for Clinton but that both candidates were awful. He said that Clinton had failed to communicate her vision for America. She is a bore, certainly, like Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale, but it is clear that she is the insider candidate, the candidate of Wall Street, the MI complex and the secret state. The elite know she is their woman – she has very successfully communicated that to them. She is also the candidate of sleaze and her presidency will be immersed in sleaze and scandal from day one, indeed even before she assumes office. What people haven’t realized is that sleaze doesn’t matter to the elite as long as their position is secured by every incoming president. The people don’t like it but they don’t matter unless of course we get another Brexit-type result. The extent to which the elite are drifting away from the people (and couldn’t care less about their obligations as an elite) is one of the emerging features of 21st century politics. The similarities with France in 1789 are there to be seen .... (We of course are an outlier when it comes to elites ignoring democracy with the results of the Nice 1 and Lisbon 1 referenda having been rejected by the State ....)
 
I listened to a very sane, calm, rational Irish-American called Michael Ryan talking to Sean O’Rourke on RTE on Thursday. Ryan is the editorial writer for an Atlanta newspaper, which is plumping for Trump. He started off by saying that Trump’s behaviour had been awful and had made it very difficult for decent people to vote for him, which is true. Then he went on to say that Trump had improved considerably in recent weeks, which is also true. (I watched part of the first presidential debate and all of the second and third debates. The improvement in Trump’s performance in the second debate over the first and in the third over the second was considerable.) He spoke about Trump displaying a measure of self-discipline in recent weeks. Indeed, if Trump had reached the stage of his political development in September that he has now reached he would be home and hosed. He said that Trump had made some important and well crafted speeches in recent weeks and was developing into a person of substance. True. Ryan’s newspaper has met Trump. The private man, it seems, is different from the public Trump. So Ryan said anyway. The general impression (spread by the media) is that only red necks from the Appalachian mountains and members of the Ku Klux Klan will vote for Trump but in point of fact tens of millions of people who can read and write will also vote for him. Most will hold their noises while doing so but America is electing a president not a marriage guidance counsellor.
 
On the other side, Ryan spoke about the sleaze that is the Clinton industry, as you might call it. (Tens of millions of people won’t vote for her because they can read and write.) It is sad that the dying days of the Obama administration are a reminder of the Nixon Presidency but I’m not surprised. Obama (who was described by an ex-CIA guy, who spoke at a public meeting in Dublin on Tuesday, as a man who lost his bxxls on Inauguration Day eight years ago somewhere between the Capitol and the WH except for the stand he took on Iran) threw in the towel on his presidency a long time ago.  You could see that listening to (as opposed to watching) the speech he made in N.Carolina the other day where he told the audience that he didn’t want to put pressure on them but that the future of the world depended on their vote. He was practically laughing and was not being in any way serious. Even RTE, strong supporters of Clinton, thought Obama was taking hyperbole to new heights or lows. The ex-CIA guy indicated (from something he had heard second hand) that Obama feared assassination. Maybe so, maybe not but Obama is smart enough to know that any president who seriously challenges the secret state is taking a risk. Having opted out a long time ago he probably couldn’t care less that HC’s behaviour at the State Department or that the efforts of the Justice Department to prevent the FBI bringing her to justice bear a striking similarity to the Nixon administration. There is a realistic chance of criminal charges being laid against HC unless Obama pardons her after 8th November, which I think he will. Whether he is worried about his reputation or not, he can’t have his successor doing the perp walk from the Oval Office to a court! Ryan said that there is civil war within the FBI over HC’s behaviour. She is still the favourite but Ryan thought that the ground was shifting beneath her feet. It is not that the opinion polls are lying but they are not keeping up with the pace of events. (Opinion polls are becoming less and less reliable anyway for all sorts of reasons mostly to do with the way society is changing.)
 
So, if there is any justice in this world Trump will win. The most important area is war and peace. Friday’s Irish Independent reported that a former chief of the imperial general staff in Britain thinks that the world would be safer under Trump than Clinton. Right again: that one is a no brainer. Trump, if elected, would be the first president in my lifetime who knew anything about business, something the WH needs. Trump’s understanding of the self-destructive nature of globalization for the developed world and the fact that it has gone too far is one of the best features of his campaign, and he has clearly succeeded in getting that view across. (Channel 4’s main evening news one day last week came from an empty factory in Detroit, the biggest empty factory in the world or some such. In spite of themselves, journalists with integrity can’t help picking up the good points in the Trump campaign.) Trump would also, I think, upend Roe V Wade and, as he said in the third debate, ensure that state legislatures did their duty and addressed the abortion issue. Given that there have been something like one billion abortions since, say, 1970 it is time that the slaughter of the innocents was stopped. I think his presidency could be a turning point on that issue, if he were to succeed in forcing the issue back to state legislatures. I’m not convinced that legislatures when confronted with the one billion figure will casually let that continue. Trump supports the Second Amendment but hasn't allowed himself to be trapped into a refusal to interpret it in a rational way.
 

I’m not suggesting that Trump would do all or anything that he says he would do, if elected, but if were to win, the vote would be what counts. If he seriously attempted to challenge the elite, the secret state would stop him (until eventually the crowd gathered around the Bastille) but might think twice before removing him as they did JFK. Kennedy was an Irish Catholic despised by millions of Americans (many of whom, or their descendants, will vote for Trump, it is true) plus the manner in which he won the election was questionable. So the secret state felt safe enough in removing him. If Trump, who is a WASP, were to win without having to go the chads route to the Supreme Court the secret state would certainly attempt to stop him but would hopefully think twice before going for the sudden removal option.

Future of the US Republican Party

The Republican Party was founded in 1853 from a number of previous incarnations, including the Whigs, the No-Nothings and the anti-slavery movement. It has always been a pro-business party and a WASP party but was temporarily a progressive party in the 1860s because supporting the retention of tariffs, in the northern and southern states, to the chagrin of the latter, which had less industry than the northern states, also meant opposing secession. The constellation of interests that came together in the 1850s resulted in the Republican Party taking on the evil of slavery in the US and defeating it. Progressive people in the US and outside it supported that struggle. The Republican Party ultimately reverted to type (with President U.S. Grant, for example, ensuring that the Indian tribes were conquered) but with occasional bursts of progressive activity such as Teddy Roosevelt taking on the robber barons of the late 19th century and adopting progressive positions on the environment. Teddy Roosevelt remains, probably, the most interesting president the US has had but, unlike Lincoln, who belongs to the ages, Roosevelt was an imperialist and recognizably a Republican in today’s terms. He was also, however, a very competent chief executive of the state.
 
The business class in the US will always have its own political party. Whether it continues to be the Republican Party or whether a new party emerges from the damage Trump is doing to the Republicans is not important. What is important is that people recognize that Trump is a political freak. He is a wealthy man, who wants to change the economic and trade policies a corrupt-beyond-repair elite is pursuing because Trump understands that current US trade policy will damage the US, including, ultimately, its elite. He is, in fact, showing the elite the way to save their own skins. His policy on trade and globalization is progressive in the same way that the policy of tariffs adopted by the Republicans in the 1850s was co-incidentally progressive because it led to the end of slavery. If Trump were to win and change US economic and trade policy, the people of the US would be its main beneficiaries. If Hilary Clinton wins, the people will not benefit. Hence, Robert de Niro or no Robert de Niro, Trump is the more progressive candidate of the two. When so-called progressives look at Trump they see someone saying things about trade policy and about other issues, such as political correctness, that progressives should be saying but are not. That embarrasses them and explains much of the over-the-top comments about Trump.

The Republican Party, post a Trump presidency, would ultimately return to protecting the interests of business and the Democrats broadly-speaking the rest. Hilary Clinton, however, will probably win the presidency and the US will continue merrily sowing the seeds of its own destruction.
 

Freakish temporary realignments in politics occur from time to time in states. It is important to recognize what is happening and to see it as freakish and temporary. Instead people are getting excited over the admittedly boorish behaviour of one of the candidates and in doing so are missing the overall picture.

34th Amendment: What next? (12th August 2016)

1. Muslims in Italy are calling for polygamy to be legalized following the introduction of same sex marriage there.

2. A mother and son in New Mexico, in a sexual relationship, are involved in a campaign to teach the world about genetic sexual attraction. If you google A mother-son couple [who were separated when the son was growing up] is fighting the law to teach the world about genetic sexual attraction you should get the story.

Visions of Floyd

I don't know much about Visions of Floyd (although I think they are from Dublin) except that they are a group of Pink Floyd fans who reproduced a number of the band's hits at the National Concert Hall last evening (Monday 8th August). As far as I know, it was a one night stand although hopefully they will be back. It was, I gather, their first ever public performance and it was impressive. The show started at 20.00 and ended about 22.45, including an encore. The band got a richly deserved standing ovation.

It wasn't a perfect performance but I've no doubt they will get better. They began by performing songs from Dark Side of the Moon, which they might have kept for the second act (after a fifteen minute or so interval around 21.00). The drums were too loud for a venue of the NCH's size (they would be more suited to The Point or to an outdoor venue) and likewise some of the guitar playing was a little on the loud side. However, neither took away from what was a very, very good show.

It is a testament to the greatness of Pink Floyd that Visions of Floyd (who gave every appearance of having prepared very thoroughly for the concert) didn't fully recreate the original sound. That, however, would be impossible but no doubt Visions of Floyd will keep striving for perfection.

The contrast between the trite, contrived, childish, talentless boy bands that we are inflicted with and the talent and maturity of Visions of Floyd (who said very little on stage and don't appear to be bothered about PR) was stark and striking. The band consists of three guitarists (one of whom is also the main vocalist), a drummer, a keyboard player and a saxophonist as well as three female backing singers, who have very strong voices. One in particular stood out.

If you are a Pink Floyd fan and you get an opportunity to see the show don't miss it.


Ulster Bank shows a rotten political system the way to go

Today’s Irish Times reports (as I suspected) that 88% of the mortgage loans being sold by Ulster Bank are more than three years in arrears and 60% are more than four years in arrears. The banks are not allowing that situation to recur with more recent loans. They are taking action sooner and, to be fair to those who are critical of the banks, they are not handing out 100% mortgages nowadays either. There was a time in the late 90s/00s when you were almost mugged if you went into a bank and didn’t come out with an extravagant loan that you didn’t want or need and couldn’t afford. Nevertheless, the key element (in the part of the Ulster Bank package that I’m interested in) is the lack of engagement by borrowers with the Bank.
 
The way the Ulster Bank decision was reported on the news yesterday by RTE’s business correspondent (who is a good reporter) was significant: his body language betrayed surprise at what was happening because of its significance. It is the sort of robust action that happens elsewhere but not in this State. It a consequence of globalization, I have to admit, and it trumps the nudge, nudge, wink, wink way the Irish State operates. We have rules for everything but very weak enforcement. There are exceptions like drink driving but it took a generation to change cultural habits there, which are still far from perfect. Nevertheless, anyone who fails a breathalyzer test on the side of the road nowadays will be arrested, prince or pauper. We need that sort of robust approach to the enforcement of all rules, civil or criminal. RTE’s business correspondent made it clear that, as a result of Ulster Bank’s move, borrowers who have failed to engage with their lenders for three, four or more years would be well advised to do so now. That is the key lesson that I hope professional advisers of all non-engaging borrowers will communicate to their clients.
 
There is a lot of nonsense going on at the moment about forcing the banks to lower mortgage interest rates. The politicians won’t face up to the real problem, a good part of which is the very large number of people who have refused to engage with their lenders about non-performing mortgages for nearly ten years now. Nor, in general, will economists or commentators or the media generally acknowledge the real problem as they are afraid of being accused of being too tough. (It is called doing your jobs.) The majority of those refusing to engage with their lenders are probably FF or FG supporters and because the number is so large they know that the Government won’t let the banks touch them. So, those of us who never missed a mortgage payment are paying off mortgages, worth millions or even billions, on behalf of people who refuse to pay them because of our rotten political system. We are also paying additional taxes, which makes it a triple whammy: our own mortgages, the mortgages of other people and additional taxes. That is simply not acceptable.
 
I suspect that most of the borrowers who stopped paying their mortgages did so because they fell on hard times after 2008. Fortunately, the situation has now improved and statistically many (though no doubt not all) of the borrowers who were unable to pay after 2008 could and should have resumed at least some payment by now. That is the nub of the matter.

It should also be pointed out that the refusal of such a large cohort of borrowers to engage with their lenders has probably forced other people into difficulty, including out of their homes. Today’s Indo says that it is probably not a significant number, and I’m inclined to agree, but there is no doubt that many people are struggling to make monthly payments that are higher than they would be if those who have refused to engage with their lenders for almost a decade now stopped behaving in such a typical and selfish Irish fashion. This is a very, very selfish society, not least because we always have weak governments that do not impose discipline on a state that is not naturally self-disciplined like, say, the Nordic states.
 
I hope AIB and BoI follow Ulster Bank's lead although we can take it as read that the Minister for Finance will not allow them to do so. There will be an election within twelve months. Maybe after that, if a stable Government is formed.