Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
3 2 Nov/Dec 2016
Commonwealth. Fine Gael’s Neale
Richmond described Brexit as creating
a “complete period of confusion” and
argued that Brexit will affect Ireland
more than any other EU member state.
Richmond advocated re-joining the
British Commonwealth asking: “would
the world really stop spinning if we
were to re-join the Commonwealth? We
can’t afford a united Ireland”. While
Richmond emphasised that he was
giving a personal position rather than
a party line it must be noted that this
position echoes what some other
prominent Fine Gael members have
argued in recent times. Senator Frank
Feighan is like-minded. On 26 Novem
-
ber 2015, almost a year before this
debate, a public meeting titled 'Who
fears to speak of 1916?' took place in
the Pearse Institute in Dublin which
was also organised by the 1916 Clubs.
At that meeting Fine Gael speaker Ted
Leddy (a member of Fingal County
Council) also advocated re-joining the
British Commonwealth. As with the
previous debate, this event was domi-
nated by issues of sovereignty and
democracy. In stark contrast to Fine
Gael’s Richmond, Republican Sinn
Féin’s Des Dalton argued that the inde-
pendence and sovereignty of Ireland
are paramount and that “attempts at
transnationality do not work”. Dalton
argued that: “going back to the 1950s
Sinn Féin were very clear about what
was at work here, what democracy is
about- breaking the connection with
England. The British system is a highly
centralised one and the EU was a fur-
ther extension of that”. Dalton spoke
of power being further and further
removed from Dublin to Brussels and
rejected the “undemocratic and cen-
tralised nature of the EU”, which flies
in the face of the 1916 Proclamation.
Economic Uncertainty
Since the Brexit vote we have wit-
nessed the pound plummet in value
and the chief executive of the British
Bankers Association Anthony Browne
has speculated that some of Britain’s
most prominent banks are making
plans to relocate out of London in 2017.
Fine Gael’s Neale Richmond has specu-
lated on possible “opportunities to
present Dublin as a refuge for compa-
nies from London”. The unique
position of the North in relation to the
UK leaves it vulnerable to economic
uncertainty caused by Brexit. All
speakers addressed the economic
implications for Ireland North and
South, particularly in relation to cross-
border trade. At present it is unclear
how Brexit will affect cross-border
economic relations but the Sinn Féin
speaker Matt Carthy noted that Brexit
has already altered North-South trade.
The North of Ireland receives the
second largest amount of EU funding
as a percentage of regional GDP,
behind Scotland. It is also predicted
that the farming sector in the North
will be particularly affected by Brexit.
However RSF’s Des Dalton challenged
this bleak outlook, arguing that: “the
EU is not Europe. The parameters of
the world don’t end with the EU. Two
thirds of our trade is outside of the
EU”. Dalton argued that the EU is fun-
damentally flawed and stated that:
“talk about reforming the EU is trying
to square the circle…there has been
increasing opposition to the EU in
referendums”.
Ireland’s relationship with the Euro
-
pean Union has blown hot and cold as
seen during the 2008 referendum on
Lisbon. Before the result was
announced then Taoiseach Brian
Cowen was apologising for it, stating
that the people didn’t understand
what they were voting for. The pro
-
posal was rejected by 53.4% of voters.
However a second referendum was
held in 2009 which saw the proposal
ultimately pass, as 67.1% of voters
voted Yes. RSF’s Des Dalton has chal-
lenged the language of democracy
cited by the other speakers and stated
that what happened with Lisbon in
2008-9 was undemocratic - the wrong
result was got in 2008 and so the vote
was taken again in 2009. Theresa
May’s appointment of ‘Brexiters’ into
prominent roles suggests that ‘Brexit
means Brexit’.
However it is unclear whether the
British government can solely trigger
article 50 without a vote in parliament.
Theresa May has rejected the concept
that MPs need to vote on this issue as
‘unconstitutional’. A High Court ruling
on 3 November has stated that only
Parliament can trigger article 50, not
the government alone. The govern-
ment is taking an appeal to the High
Court. Therefore it remains unclear
how Brexit will proceed. With such
uncertainty around the implementa
-
tion of Brexit, it is unsurprising that
the implications for Ireland or for the
North specifically are unknown.
A cross-party group (Sinn
Féin, SDLP, Alliance and the
Green Party) initiated a legal
challenge against Brexit stating that
the North of Ireland has a veto over
any constitutional change, which they
argue emanates from the Good Friday
Agreement
NI SURvey ON eU MeMBeRSHIP
Conclusion: The winds of change
Before the referendum, debate in England was largely framed by the
right, particularly UKIP and leading Brexiter Nigel Farage. The Leave
campaign was widely labelled xenophobic by its opponents. In the
North of Ireland, debate was not characterised in the same way.
Republican Sinn Féin’s Des Dalton has argued “there were some
unpleasant voices but there were also some democratic voices. There
were also some unpleasant voices on the remain side”. Debate in the
North was dominated by economic argument and the remain side
emphasised the positives which have come from ‘peace money’
which Northern Ireland has received from Europe.
No one knows exactly what Brexit will bring. On 28 October Judge
Paul Maguire in Belfast rejected the cross-party challenge to Brexit:
“while the wind of change may be about to blow, the precise direc
-
tion in which it will blow cannot yet be determined”. Speculation
regarding a hard border, restrictions on freedom of movement and
trade, and implications on EU ‘peace money’ are wide-ranging. Fur
-
ther questions arise over the position of Irish citizens (Irish passport
holders) who live in the state of Northern Ireland but work in England,
some of whom, working are in the public sector, have received let-
ters stating that their job ‘should be secure’ in the wake of Brexit.
Certainly Brexit means Brexit. Beyond that there is a lot to debate,
and a lot at stake.
Source: Danske Bank
POLITICS
Nov/Dec 2016 3 3
T
HE WORKING Group on Direct Provision
and the Protection Process, of which
Nasc was a member, reported over a
year ago. The Tánaiste and Minister for
Justice Francis Fitzgerald proclaimed
last June that “140 of 173 recommendations have
been implemented, partially implemented or are
in progress”. Despite the highly qualified nature
of this statement, one would be forgiven for
thinking that huge reforms have been made or
are about to be made in our reception and pro
-
tection system. Do we now have a system that
“treats asylum-seekers with the humanity and
respect that they deserve”?
Humanity and respect were the principles
upon which the Working Group was formed. The
answer to this question therefore turns upon the
word “deserve”. It shifts the focus from the crea-
tion of a clear rights-based reception and
protection system, to a system where marginal-
ised people fall into categories of “deserving
and undeserving”. Asylum-seekers and their
families would seem to fall squarely into the
“undeserving” category, housed in old hotels
and convents, often on the outskirts of towns
and cities, out of sight of normal populations.
The reality of our asylum-seeker regime makes
definitively clear the value we assign to them.
What has changed for the 4,303 people cur-
rently living in Direct Provision? The single most
successful outcome of the Working Group report
was the introduction of an informal scheme that
saw the granting of residency to over 1,000 resi
-
dents who had been in the system for five or more
years. Importantly, this involved the revocation
of deportation orders on an unprecedented scale.
This was very welcome and commendable.
The student pilot scheme granting access to
third-level education for asylum-seeking school-
leavers, who have spent more than five years in
the system, was renewed this year. This is a very
limited scheme, however, and only two young
people benefited from it in 2015.
The living allowance for children in Direct Pro
-
vision was increased by a modest €5.40 bringing
the weekly allowance to a paltry €15.60 per
week. This is well below the €29.00 per week
recommended by the Working Group. The adult
allowance remains at €19.10 per week and,
revealingly, no increase was announced in this
year’s Budget.
A number of the key transformative recom-
mendations of the Working Group have not been
implemented or have only been partially imple-
mented. Asylum-seekers still do not have the
right to work. It seems that realisation of this
right is as remote a prospect as it was when our
current system was designed, in 2000. The intro-
duction of the International Protection Act 2015,
amounts to a missed opportunity to provide for
this right and other associated rights outlined in
the EU Directive laying down standards for the
reception of applicants for international
protection.
The Act also fell short in safeguarding the
rights of asylum-seeking children. It failed fully
to implement a key Working Group recommenda-
tion that called for the inclusion of the general
principle that the best interests of the child be a
primary consideration in all actions concerning
children in the reception process. In the Act, con-
sideration of the principle is only reflected in a
small number of limited provisions and does
little to provide real safeguards and protection
for the rights of asylum-seeking children.
Minister Frances Fitzgerald has agreed “in
principle” to extend the remit of the Ombudsman
for Children to children in Direct Provision but
this has yet to happen. Recently, the Children’s
Ombudsman, Dr Niall Muldoon, repeated his call
on the Minister to “take this recommendation on
board” and stop the “huge, indefensible, dis-
crimination between the children living in Ireland
who have a defined status and those who are
awaiting a decision on same”. Do asylum-seek-
ing children not “deserve” the full protection of
his office?
Almost a decade ago Dr Liam Thornton
described Direct Provision as both “exclusive
and excluding”. It is exclusive in that no other
population, save those in our prisons, live in a
setting that precludes them from accessing
mainstream social-welfare payments, and con-
demns them to a life of enforced poverty and
idleness where they are prohibited from working
to support their families. The system is exclud-
ing as asylum-seekers, despite the initial public
outcry and support for reform and the publica
-
tion of Report of the Working Group on Direct
Provision and the Protection Process, remain
excluded and marginalised from mainstream
Irish society.
The Government must change its attitudes
and priorities to fully implement the recommen-
dations of the Working Group to enable our
asylum-seeking community to live with dignity
and respect.
Fiona Finn is the CEO of NASC, the Irish
immigrant support centre.
Government action shows asylum-seeker Working Group
vision sold short as Direct Provision keeps allowances low,
denies employment and marginalises children
by Fiona Finn
The International Protection
Act 2015, amounts to a
missed opportunity to allow
employment and other
associated rights outlined
in the EU Directive
Deprived
of humanity
and respect
3 4 Nov/Dec 2016
A
CCORDING TO Oliver Callan, Leo Varadkar is
Marian Finucane’s favourite. Certainly he is
a media darling with a streak of independ-
ence as when he brought down the house of
cards on the Garda Commisioner, and there
-
fore on Alan Shatter, and he has rightly been praised for
the manner in which he dealt with his own announce-
ment that he was a gay man. It was amusingly Freudian
therefore when he recently made a rare faux pas by blurt-
ing out to a media scrummage that the social welfare
details of the budget would shortly be announced, by
none other than Micheál Martin – the opposition leader.
The statement was greeted by hoots of laughter from the
attendant media. Clearly Varadkar meant to say Michael
Noonan and his slip of the tongue was forgiven. Leo is
popular with the media whom he tactfully manages.
Leo Varadkar might well be the country's next Taoise
-
ach, if he and some colleagues decide it is time for Enda
Kenny to hang up his boots. Kenny still insists he will be
staying on until at least 2018 to host a visit by Pope Fran-
cis to Ireland. For Leo Varadkar to become Taoiseach, as
opposed to mere leader of Fine Gael, he will need the
support of Micheál Martin. For Martin, supporting or
abstaining on the vote for a second FG Taoiseach might
be a little bit tricky. The prospect of not getting Micheál's
support might be playing on Varadkar’s mind.
Martin is rapidly acquiring the flattering description
applied to Jack Lynch while in opposition: ‘The Real Taoi-
seach’. The strange arrangements at Leinster House
these days puts Martin in power but not in office and
Enda Kenny in office but not completely in power. Martin
now exerts more actual power than any other opposition
leader since the foundation of the state. The indications
are that Martin wants a minimum of three years to pass
before another general election.
The issue of the timing of Enda Kenny's departure is
primarily of concern to those hoping to replace him - Var-
adkar, Simon Coveney, Frances Fitzgerald and perhaps
newcomers like Pascal Donohoe and Simon Harris, in
key ministries. Such periods of leadership transition can
often be the occasion of bitter infighting, personality
clashes, insider leaking and devious plots.
The Tony Blair versus Gordon Brown conflict is one
spectacular example of this from across the water, it had
long-term consequences including the UK's decision to
leave the EU. Brown famously sabotaged Blair's effort to
bring Britain into the euro currency zone.
I mention all of this as the decision by the UK to leave
the EU is already affecting Ireland in terms of export dif
-
ficulties and lower economic growth. A period of political
stability and calm heads is what the country requires. In
this respect it was interesting to see Leo Varadkar
dampen down speculation of an early Kenny departure,
though broaching it at all is evidence that the power
struggle has already begun.
Leo Varadkar is not popular in FF. His virulent attacks
on the party over the years are not forgotten. His hostil
-
ity to the soldiers of destiny was very evident to the FF
negotiators at Trinity College in the post-election discus-
sions. However, being unpopular with the FF crowd will
hardly cost Leo Varadkar the FG leadership. The real
threat to him lies within FG, with Frances Fitzgerald
Pretender
with no legacy
Taoiseach in waiting, Leo Varadkar
needs a vision and some policies, not
just a benign media persona
POLITICS
by Conor Lenihan
Nov/Dec 2016 3 5
staking out the ground in competition to him. Theresa
May did something of the same thing in Britain and in
the process slayed a bigger political giant in the form of
Borris Johnson.
A healthy paranoia on Leo Varadkar's part might sug
-
gest that Enda Kenny is not out to help him. After all,
Varadkar did throw in his lot with Richard Bruton’s push
to remove Kenny before the 2011 election - the heave so
expertly extirpate by Phil Hogan and Frank Flannery.
Varadkar’s thinking on his party leader was evident in
two comments he made to the recent Pat Leahy docu-
mentary on Enda Kenny: he confessed to finding his
optimism “irritating” and admitted that he has no idea
what makes him tick.
A bigger threat to Leo Varadkar is a deeper suggestion
that he has hop, skipped and jumped from ministry to
ministry leaving little or no policy imprint of substance.
Health is never an easy gig but he did not do very much
beyond mutely disposing of his party's clearest policy -
the promise to create a universal health care system.
Remarkably he never had to explain what he was replac-
ing it with. In Transport he did hardly anything. There are
simply no Varadkar signature policies.
Social Welfare has been a graveyard for ministers with
ambition. Haughey was the only person to make it a
springboard to the biggest job. It is no easy task.
Haughey had the hunger and an undeniable command
of public policy. Varadkar lacks this quality but does
have a public appeal as a fresh and challenging face in
politics. So far it has been reported he has used the port-
folio, seen as not too time-consuming, to promote his
claims to leadership. Perhaps it’s time to judge him on
his policies and his legacy.
Delivering an oration at the Collins/Griffith Commemo-
ration earlier this year we got an insight into Varadkar’s
thinking: “Collins recognised that ‘the essence of our
struggle was to secure freedom to order our own life. And
that is the vision that should be at the heart of our think-
ing in the 21st century. We need to advance and expand
the recovering economy so that more people are free to
order their own life”. So far so humdrum, so Margaret
Thatcher.
Few are betting Varadkar will not ultimately ascend
and switch places with Micheál Martin - forced to lead
his party into an election without the benefit of being
Taoiseach but still having to defend a broad record of
unpopular decisions.
If Varadkar ever becomes Taoiseach, it’s to be hoped
it’s based on a clarified vision, and that he shows him
-
self willing to focus more on the workaday tasks of
creating and implementing policy.
Unpopularity with FF will
hardly cost Leo Varadkar the
FG leadership. The real threat
comes from Frances Fitzgerald
staking out the ground.
