English version follows below
Tá ról Uachtarán na hÉireann den chuid is mó searmanasach. Is féidir léi diúltú do dhíscaoileadh na Dála (parlaimint) má tá an ceannaire tar éis an tromlach a chailleadh. Ceapann sí an Taoiseach (ceannaire na parlaiminte), ach caithfidh sí rogha na Dála a leanúint. Agus, b’fhéidir is tábhachtaí fós, is féidir léi billí (dlíthe molta) a chur ar aghaidh chuig an Chúirt Uachtarach chun bunreachtúlacht a mheas.
Vótáil mé ar son Catherine Connolly mar go raibh sí soiléir ina tuairimí agus, dar liom, gur thug sí machnamh ar thuairimí contrártha. Ba í a mana “Uachtarán do Chách” agus mhothaigh mé go raibh sé sin fíor. Thaitin sé liom gur sheas sí mar neamhspleách, agus gur fhan sí neamhspleách ar feadh i bhfad ó d’fhág sí Páirtí an Lucht Oibre. Is sóisialacha iad na páirtithe a bhí á tacú léi, agus níl go leor dá cuid tuairimí ar aon dul le mo chuid féin, ach bhí sé sin níos lú tábhachta domsa anseo, ar an iomlán.
Bheadh an t-iarrthóir eile, Heather Humphreys, ceart go leor freisin. Tá meas agam go ndeachaigh an bheirt acu san iomaíocht. Is beag daoine a bhíonn ag iarraidh seasamh don oifig phoiblí (agus tá díospóireacht ann faoi phróiseas ainmniúcháin an uachtaráin). Is strusmhar agus sách neamhbhuíoch é a bheith sa pholaitíocht, ach tá sé tábhachtach.
Ceannteideal an FT
“Tá Éire ar tí uachtarán crua-chlé a roghnú”
Sin é an ceannlíne san Financial Times, agus seo roinnt cúiseanna leis an mbrandáil sin, go léir luaite ón alt san FT:
- An Phalaistín. “Tá an polaiteoir atá go dian pro-Phalaistinach tar éis an Mheiriceá, an Ríocht Aontaithe agus an Fhrainc a lipéadú mar neamhiontaofa i dtaca lena seasamh ar Ghaza.”
- Neodracht agus ath-armáil. “Bhain an t-iarchleachtóir dlí agus an síceolaí cliniciúil lascadh as tógáil mhíleata an AE mar fhreagra ar chogadh na Rúise san Úcráin, ag rá go bhfuil an bloc ‘tar éis a chompás morálta a chailleadh’ agus go raibh caiteachas ath-armála na Gearmáine i gcuimhne ar na 1930idí.”
- A turas go dtí an tSiria. Le linn an fheachtais, bhí Connolly faoi cháineadh dian mar gheall ar thuras “fiosraithe” a rinne sí go dtí an tSiria faoi Assad in 2018;
- Fostaíocht i bpáirtí poblachtánaigh easaontach. A cinneadh poblachtánach easaontaí a bhí ciontach i gcoireanna arm tine a fhostú lena bheith ag obair ina hoifig pharlaiminte;
- Obair mar abhcóide do bhainc. A cuid oibre mar abhcóide ag déanamh ionadaíochta do bhainc ag am ar cuireadh tithe ar ais i seilbh le linn na géarchéime airgeadais.
Rachaidh mé trí gach ceann díobh in ord a chéile.
An Phalaistín
Bhí cónaí orm i SAM ar feadh 10 mbliana agus in Éirinn ar feadh 25. Tá bearna mhór idir na meántuairimí ar an gcoinbhleacht idir Iosrael agus an Phalaistín sna dhá áit, cé go bhfuil an raon tuairimí i SAM i bhfad níos leithne.
In Éirinn, níl mórán Iosraelach ná Giúdaigh ann, cé gur tógadh athair uachtarán reatha Iosrael in Éirinn, agus gur labhair a sheanathair Gaeilge líofa. Tá muintir na hÉireann sách eolach ar an Dara Cogadh Domhanda agus ar an Uileloscadh. Ó mo thaobh féin de, sin den chuid is mó mar a stad mo chuid eolais ar Iosrael agus ar an nGiúdachas. Bhí mo chuid eolais ar stair na Palaistíne beagnach ar nialas, agus ní raibh aithne agam ar Phalaistínigh ar bith in Éirinn sular chuaigh mé go SAM. I SAM, d’oibrigh mé le go leor Palaistíneach agus Iosraelach agus tá cairde dlúth agam atá Palaistíneach agus Giúdach.
Tá cathú ann dlúthpháirtíocht na nÉireannach leis na Palaistínigh a léiriú i dtéarmaí coilíneachais, .i. gur coilíneacht Bhriotanach a bhí in Éirinn agus dá bhrí sin go bhfuil dlúthpháirtíocht ann leis na Palaistínigh atá faoi chois ag Iosrael. Cé go mb’fhéidir go bhfuil tionchar éigin ag an uillinn sin, níorbh í an taithí a bhí agam ag fás aníos in Éirinn taithí choilíneach. Bhí, agus tá, an grinnfhocal ó am go chéile ar chostas na Breataine, ach bhraith muintir na hÉireann — go háirithe le Sky, UTV agus Channel 4 trí chábla-teilifíse — ar aon tonn agus cairdiúil leis an Ríocht Aontaithe. Anois tá Netflix ann, agus — cosúil le cuid mhór den domhan — tá Éire éirithe níos Meiriceánaí ó thaobh an chultúir de.
Ní raibh mórán le rá ag mo sheantuismitheoirí faoi riail na Breataine in Éirinn. Bhí sé sin roimh a ré, agus i bhfad roimh mo ré féin. Thug siad fúthu, áfach, le linn “na dTrioblóidí”, an tréimhse foréigin ó thart ar na 1960idí go dtí na 1990idí a bhí teoranta den chuid is mó do Thuaisceart Éireann ach a raibh tionchar aici ar an bPoblacht agus ar Shasana freisin. Is cuimhin go maith le mo sheantuismitheoirí agus le mo thuismitheoirí na Trioblóidí, cé nár baineadh mór-tionchar díreach astu. Rugadh mé in 1989 agus tógadh mé sa Phoblacht, gan foréigean ag cur isteach orm. Is é an t-aon chuimhne atá agam ná gur chuaigh mé chuig agóid le m’Athair i mo bhaile dúchais. Ba agóid í i gcoinne bhuamála an IRA in Ómaigh sna 1990idí. D’fhoghlaim mé inniu go raibh cara liom le bheith in Ómaigh an lá sin, ach bhris sé fuinneog agus é ag imirt agus cuireadh moill ceithre huaire an chloig ar an teaghlach, agus mar sin d’éalaigh siad ó na pléascanna.
Mar a fheicimse é, soláthraíonn na Trioblóidí lionsa níos déanaí agus níos tionchairí do dhaoine in Éirinn maidir leis an gcoinbhleacht Iosrael-Phalaistín ná mar a dhéanann stair riail na Breataine. Tá trí lionsa a sheasann amach domsa a mbíonn tionchar acu ar smaointeoireacht na nÉireannach:
- Ní thaitníonn an IRA le muintir na hÉireann. Níl aon amhras sóisialta ach gur duine as a mheabhair é duine a bheadh ag béicíl “Up the RA” go fírinneach — duine ar cheart a bheith ar an airdeall ina thaobh. Tá a fhios ag daoine in Éirinn gur mharaigh agus gur chéas an IRA sibhialtaigh, idir Bhriotanacha agus Éireannaigh. Tá a fhios acu freisin nach ndearna gníomhaíochtaí an IRA maolú ná údar ar mharú Éireannach — go díreach nó trí thimpiste — ag an Arm Briotanach. I SAM, áit a bhfuil bá ag go leor le muintir Ghása, tagann an trua sin uaireanta ón dearcadh gur damáiste comhthaobhach iad na Palaistínigh i gcogadh ionaid faoi cheannas na hIaráine agus/nó mar dhamáiste comhthaobhach i ndíriú ar rialtas Hamas a toghadh acu féin. Cé go bhfuil loighic ag baint leis na dearcadh sin, is féidir a thuiscint cén fáth nach é sin príomh-lionsa na nÉireannach agus básanna na ndeich mílte Palaistíneach á bhfeiceáil acu.
- Níl “airm thraidisiúnta” sheasta i gceist. Déanann cuid de na scéalta sna meáin i SAM Hamas a láimhseáil amhail is airm thraidisiúnta a bhféadfaí “a chloí”, mar shampla tríd a saighdiúirí nó a ceannairí uilig a bhaint den stáitse. A mhalairt ar fad, tá an taithí Éireannach ar an IRA níos dinimiciúla — go dtí gur tháinig síocháin agus institiúidí (go pointe) iontaofa, bhí foinse in-athnuachana i gcónaí d’“cheannairí” agus de “shaighdiúirí”. Tá prionsabal “gan idirbheartaíocht a dhéanamh le sceimhlitheoirí riamh” loighciúil ar an gcéad dul síos, ach — ar bhealaí áirithe — is trí idirbheartaíocht le sceimhlitheoirí a tháinig an tsíocháin i dTuaisceart Éireann.
- “Sceimhlitheoir” vs “trodaí saoirse”. Tá lionsa aisteach ann ó thaithí na dTrioblóidí: “Is sceimhlitheoir ag duine amháin é trodaí saoirse ag duine eile.” Cé go bhfuil fírinní áirithe ann, is cineál ceadaithe foréigin é sin agus céim siar. Cé go ndéanann formhór daoine in Éirinn foréigean Hamas a dhaoradh, tá níos mó daoine ná mar a bheadh uaim atá neamhchinnte nó a dhéanann é a údarú.
Neodracht agus ath-armáil
Is féidir liom aontú — cé nach bhfuilim lánmhuiníneach — gur chóir d’Éirinn fanacht neodrach. Ar ndóigh, nílimid neodrach ar go leor bealaí, toisc go mbraithimid (bhraith muid?) ar an Ríocht Aontaithe agus ar SAM maidir le slándáil, agus — mar chuid den AE agus d’eagraíochtaí eile — tá caidrimh agus roghanna eacnamaíocha againn go soiléir.
Ní roinnim go hiomlán cáineadh dian Connolly ar leathnú NATO agus ar mhíleatú an AE, ach is cáineadh é ar chóir tuilleadh dáiríreachta a thabhairt dó. An féidir leis an AE agus le NATO crios eacnamaíoch agus comhghuaillíocht mhíleata a leathnú gan a bheith ag súil le frithbheartas geo-pholaitiúil? Fiú dá mbeadh cúiseanna morálta agus/nó polaitiúla le leathnú, an féidir leis an AE agus le NATO leathnú gan acmhainní leordhóthanacha — míleata agus eacnamaíocha — a chur ar fáil?
Tá cáineadh Connolly ar ath-armáil reatha na Gearmáine páirteach ceart, ach mícheart den chuid is mó. Tá sé mícheart mar go bhfuil bagairt mhíleata ón Rúis ar thíortha na hEorpa, agus ní féidir bagairt mhíleata a chur ina coinne gan geilleagar agus fórsa cosanta láidir. Tá sí ceart go bhfuil armáil contúirteach don domhan agus go méadaíonn sí rioscaí do chách. Is tragóid na gcomh-acmhainní í sin, agus ní féidir í a shárú trí do thalamh a thabhairt uait. Tá sí ceart freisin a bheith cúramach agus amhrasach faoi mhéadú ar chaiteachas míleata. Is furasta do chonarthaí cosanta dul chun grinn, ag tarraingt airgid ó cháiníocóirí chuig conraitheoirí cosanta a bhfuil spreagadh acu costais a ardú agus cogadh a dhianú.
Is é an cás is fearr d’Éirinn caiteachas cosanta agus bonneagair a mhéadú ar nós na bhFionlannach, agus an oiread agus is féidir den chaiteachas sin a dhéanamh ilchuspóireach, chun freastal ar riachtanais shibhialta agus mhíleata araon. Ach tá imní orm nach bhfuil aon lón saor in aisce anseo. Is costas breise ard é caiteachas míleata le cur ar gheilleagair a bhfuil cánacha arda agus fás maol orthu cheana féin.
Turas Connolly go dtí an tSiria
Táim amhrasach faoi cháineadh duine X as bualadh le duine Y. Is minic a fheiceann an tsochaí cruinnithe X le Y mar a bheadh formhuiniú X ar Y ann. Níl sé sin sláintiúil mar — ar a laghad i mo thaithí ghnó — is annamh a bhí toradh níos measa agam tar éis bualadh le daoine aghaidh ar aghaidh. B’fhéidir gur fiú fós níos mó bualadh le daoine nach n-aontaímid leo nó atá in achrann linn.
É sin ráite, ní thuigim cén fáth ar chuaigh Connolly ar an gcuairt sin ná cén fáth ar bhuail sí leis na daoine ar bhuail sí leo. Gan dul i bhfad i doimhne ar an turas, bhí cuma as áit go maith air. Cén caidreamh go díreach a bhí/atá ag Éirinn leis an tSiria i ré Bashar al-Assad, más ann dó?
Cinneadh Connolly poblachtánach easaontaí a fhostú
Is é seo an píosa a chuir an t-imoibriú ba mheasa orm mar gheall ar vótáil do Connolly. Fhostaigh sí bean a daoradh as smuigleáil arm, cé go ndearna sí a pianbhreith agus deirtear gur athshlánúíodh í. Mhol Éamon Ó Cuív, Teachta Dála de chuid Fhianna Fáil (príomhpháirtí Éireannach), an bhean sin. Is cosúil liomsa gur patrún fíoras aisteach é seo agus gur rogha amhrasach ab ea í.
Obair Connolly mar abhcóide do bhainc
Rinne ionsaí Heather Humphreys ar Connolly as bainc a ionadaíocht mar abhcóide le linn na géarchéime airgeadais níos claonta mé i dtreo vótáil do Connolly ná do Humphreys.
Is é cúram na n-abhcóidí a gcliaint a ionadaíocht i gcúrsaí dlí. Tá na rialacha maidir le díshealbhú tionóntaí leagtha síos sa dlí, agus is féidir na dlíthe sin a nuashonrú agus a leagan síos ag an Dáil. Is fíor nach gá duit bainc a roghnú mar chliaint má tá tú i do abhcóide. Fós féin, is cosúil liomsa gur beag tairbhe é má mheasann an tsochaí nach inghlactha é cabhrú le bainc maoin a dhiúscairt i ndiaidh géarchéime. Tá bealach struchtúrtha ann chun na cásanna deacra a láimhseáil nuair nach féidir iasachtaí a íoc, agus soláthraíonn ionadaíocht dhlíthiúil agus cásanna cúirte an meicníocht sin. Má tá na dlíthe dona, ba chóir iad a athrú. Más rud é, léirigh an taithí seo ag Connolly dom go bhfuil taithí phraiticiúil aici ar cheisteanna casta tithíochta agus baincéireachta.
Connolly agus an tithíocht
Chuir Connolly ina choinne deireadh a chur le stad ar dhíshealbhuithe in 2023. Is fíor go laghdaíonn stad ar dhíshealbhuithe an fhulaingt dóibh siúd atá i mbaol díshealbhaithe ag pointe ama áirithe, ach tagann sé sin ar chostas níos lú tithe ar cíos agus níos lú tithíochta go ginearálta.
D’fhéadfaí dlí a rith freisin a éilíonn ar mhonaróirí bia leanúint de bhia a sholáthar fiú má stopann custaiméirí d’íoc. Go luath ina dhiaidh sin, beidh níos lú monaróirí bia ann — agus níos lú bia.
Má tá 70 teach ann agus 100 teaghlach ag iarraidh tithe, is cuma cén polasaí díshealbhaithe atá ann, beidh 30 teaghlach ann nach bhfaighidh tithe. Is é an polasaí is fearr an polasaí a dhúnann an bhearna le himeacht ama idir na tithe atá ann agus na tithe a theastaíonn ó dhaoine. Tá daonra na hÉireann, agus an t-éileamh ar thithe, ag fás go tapa. Teastaíonn níos mó tithe le ceannach agus ar cíos uainn, ní níos lú.
Tá beagán misnigh le fáil agam sna foirgnimh árasán nua atá á dtógáil i mBaile Átha Cliath, ach táim doicheallach go mbeidh Éire in ann soláthar tithíochta a mhéadú go leor. Cé go laghdaíonn rialuithe praghais an soláthar agus an caighdeán, is é an próiseas pleanála an bac níos mó ar sholáthar a mhéadú. Faraor, b’fhéidir go léiríonn an córas pleanála in Éirinn tuairimí an phobail. Ní theastaíonn ó go leor daoine tógáil ina gcomharsanacht, ní theastaíonn uathu forbairtí “tóg-le-cíosa” — toisc go gcuireann siad bac ar úinéireacht tí — agus ní theastaíonn uathu “tóg-le-ceannach” mar tá siad ró-chostasach do dhaoine. Tá dearcadh diúltach míchothrom ag daoine i leith tógálaithe agus forbróirí freisin (ní rud uathúil Éireannach é sin), rud a d’fhéadfadh neamhshuim a chiallaíonn nuair a thagann sé le hiarratais phleanála a thacú agus seasamh in aghaidh agóidithe.
D’fhéadfaimis an córas pleanála a athchóiriú, ach b’fhéidir gurb é an tús is féidir a chur leis sin ná dearcadh níos dearfaí i leith forbartha agus níos mó brú sóisialta ar na grúpaí beaga cumhachtacha atá comhchruinnithe a chuireann bac ar chead pleanála agus ar thógáil.
Cé nach gcruthaíonn an tUachtarán polasaithe ná nach dtéann sí i bhfeidhm go díreach orthu, tá imní orm go gcuirfear polasaithe chun cinn a laghdaíonn soláthar tithíochta, dar liom.
An Chomhairle Stáit
Ainmníonn an tUachtarán baill de Chomhairle Stáit — mar aon leis na baill reachtúla, mar shampla iar-Uachtaráin — chun treoir a thabhairt ar cé na billí ba chóir a chur ar aghaidh chuig an gCúirt Uachtarach. Sa díospóireacht, cuireadh ceist ar an mbeirt iarrthóirí cé a cheapfaidís agus ní raibh an chuma orthu go raibh mórán machnaimh déanta acu air. Rinne Humphreys an pointe gur chóir go mbeadh an chomhairle 50-50 fir agus mná, agus mhol sí go gcuimseofaí duine a bhfuil taithí aige/aici ar an athrú aeráide. Is cosúil go bhfuil sé tábhachtach éagsúlacht de pheirspictíochtaí a chur san áireamh, ach is minic a bhíonn amhras orm faoi chuótaí inscne docht. De réir mo thaithí — san oideachas agus sa ghnó — ní smaoiníonn daoine ar an mbealach céanna ar dhaoine a roghnaítear faoi chóras cuótaí. Ní shealbhaím an tuairim sin ró-chrua, áfach. B’fhéidir go bhfuil sé ceart go leor nó fiú go maith rudaí a choinneáil 50-50. É sin ráite, níorbh iad an t-athrú aeráide agus cuótaí inscne an dá rud a thiocfadh i m’intinn ar dtús agus painéal á roghnú chun bunreachtúlacht a mheas.
Rogha “ard-athraitheachta”?
Mar a dúirt cara liom go gonta, is pioc le h-ard-athraitheacht í Connolly. Tá an seans ann go mbeidh torthaí maithe ann má éisteann sí go maith, má dhéanann sí maolú agus má dhéanann sí ionadaíocht ar raon leathan tuairimí. Tá níos mó míbhuntáistí ann má ghreamaíonn daoine de na tuairimí atá aici faoi chaiteachas cosanta agus tithíocht. Fillfidh mé ar seo i gceann cúpla bliain, leis an uachtaránacht agus mo chuid tuairimí féin a fheiceáil conas a d’fhorbair siad.
ENGLISH VERSION
The Irish President’s role is largely ceremonial. She can refuse a dissolution of the Dáil (parliament) if the leader has lost the majority. She appoints the Taoiseach (leader of parliament), but must follow the choice of the Dáil. And, perhaps of most importance, she can refer bills (proposed laws) to the Supreme Court to assess constitutionality.
I voted for Catherine Connolly because she was clear on her views and, I felt, gave consideration to opposing views. Her slogan was “A President for All” and I felt that was genuine. I liked that she ran as an independent, and had been independent for quite some time since leaving the Labour Party. The parties endorsing her are socialist, and many of her views are not in line with my own, but that was less important for me here, on balance.
The alternate candidate, Heather Humphreys would have been fine too. I appreciate that both of them ran for office. Not a lot of people want to run for office. It is stressful and somewhat thankless.
“Ireland poised to pick hard-left president”
That is the headline in the Financial Times, and here are some reasons for that branding, all quoted from the FT piece:
- Palestine. “The staunchly pro-Palestinian politician has also branded the US, UK and France untrustworthy over their stance on Gaza”.
- Neutrality and rearmament. “The former barrister and clinical psychologist has blasted the EU’s military build-up in response to Russia’s war in Ukraine, saying the bloc “has lost its moral compass” and that German rearmament spending was reminiscent of the 1930s.”
- Her trip to Syria. During the campaign Connolly faced fierce criticism over a “fact-finding” trip she made to Assad-era Syria in 2018;
- Her decision to hire a dissident republican convicted of gun crimes to work in her parliamentary office;
- Her work as a barrister representing banks at a time when homes were repossessed during the financial crisis.
I’ll go through each in turn.
Palestine
I lived in the US for 10 years and in Ireland for 25. There is a wide gulf between median views on the Israel-Palestine conflict in the two places, although the range of views in the US is quite a bit broader.
In Ireland, there were and are few Israelis or jews, although the current Israeli president’s father grew up in Ireland, and his grandfather spoke fluent Irish. Irish people are reasonably well informed on the second world war and the Holocaust. Speaking for myself, that was largely where my knowledge of Israel and judaism stopped. My knowledge of the history of Palestine was near zero, and I knew no Palestinians in Ireland before going to the US. In the US, I worked with many Palestinians and Israelis and have close friends who are Palestinian and who are jewish.
It’s tempting to cast Irish solidarity for Palestinians in colonial terms, i.e. Ireland was a British colony and therefore there is solidarity with Palestinians who are oppressed by Israel. While this angle likely has some influence, my experience growing up in Ireland was not colonial. There was and is the odd joke at the expense of the British, but the Irish – particularly with Sky, UTV and Channel 4 via cable TV – felt aligned and friendly with the British. Now there is Netflix, and Ireland – like much of the world – has become more culturally American.
My grandparents did not have much to say about the British rule in Ireland. It was before their time, and well before my time. They did live through “The Troubles”, the period of violence in from ~1960s-1990s that was largely confined to Northern Ireland, but affected the Republic and England too. My grandparents and parents remember the troubles well, although were not directly affected much. I was born in 1989 and grew up in the Republic, unaffected by violence. My only memory is of going to a protest with my Dad in my local town. It was a protest against IRA bombings in Omagh in the 1990s. I learned today that a friend of mine was due to be in Omagh on that day, but he broke a window while playing and the family got delayed by four hours, missing the explosions.
As I see it, the Troubles provide a more recent and influential lens for Irish people on the Israel-Palestine conflict than does the history of British Rule. There are three lenses that stand out to me as affecting Irish thinking:
1. Irish people dislike the IRA. There is no social doubt that a person genuinely shouting “Up the RA” is a nutter to be wary of. Irish people know the IRA killed and tortured civilians, British and Irish. Irish people also know that the IRA’s actions did not justify the killing of Irish people – directly, or accidentally – by the British Army. In the US, where there is compassion for Gazans, it is sometimes from the viewpoint of Palestinians being collateral in a proxy war led by Iran and/or as collateral damage trying to take out a Hamas government they themselves elected. While there is logic to those perspectives, you can see why this might not be the primary lens through which Irish people see the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians.
2. Some US media narratives treats Hamas as a static or traditional army that can be “defeated”, for example by taking out all of its soldiers or its leaders. By contrast, the Irish experience on the IRA is more dynamic – until there was peace and (somewhat) trusted institutions, there was an ever-renewing source of IRA leaders and “soldiers”. The principle of “never negotiating with terrorists” has good first-order logic to it, but – in some ways – negotiating with terrorists is how peace came about in Northern Ireland. I grew up in peace in the south of Ireland and can only imagine, but that must have been incredibly difficult when there were Irish and British people whose family members were tortured, killed and kidnapped by the “other side”.
3. There is a perverse lens that the Irish troubles and colonial history bring to the Middle Eastern conflict, namely that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter perspective”. Again, while there is truth to this angle, it is an endorsement of violence and a step backwards. While most people in Ireland condemn Hamas’ violence, there are more people than I would like that are ambivalent or justify it.
Neutrality and rearmament
I can agree – although am not entirely confident – that Ireland should remain neutral. Obviously, we are not neutral in many ways, because we rely (relied?) on the UK and US for security, and – as part of the EU and other organisations – we clearly have economic relationship and preferences.
I largely don’t share Connolly’s staunch criticism of NATO expansion and EU militarisation, but it is criticism that should be taken more seriously. Can the EU and NATO continue to expand an economic zone and military alliance without expecting some geopolitical pushback? Even if there are moral and/or political reasons to expand, can the EU and NATO expand without being adequately resourced – militarily and economically?
Connolly’s criticism of Germany’s current rearmament is partially right, but majorly wrong. It is wrong because there is a military threat to European countries from Russia, and, one cannot repel a military threat without having a solid economy and military. She is right that armament is dangerous for the world, and it increases risks for everyone. It’s a tragedy of the commons, and you can’t overcome that tragedy by giving away your land. She is also right to be careful and skeptical of growing military spending. Defense contracts easily become a grift, syphoning off taxpayer money to defence contractors whose incentives are to drive up costs and increase war.
The best scenario is for Ireland to increase defence and infrastructure spending as the Finnish do, trying to make as much spending as possible dual purpose, to serve both civilian and military purposes. I do worry this is far from a free lunch. Military spending is a high additional cost to impose on economies with already high taxes and sluggish growth.
Connolly’s trip to Syria.
I’m skeptical of critiques of person X for meeting person Y. Society has come to view meetings of X with Y as endorsements by X of Y. This is unhealthy because – at least in my business experience – I have rarely had a worse outcome by meeting people in person. Perhaps it is even more important to meet people we disagree with or are in conflict with.
That said, I don’t understand why Connolly went on that visit and why she met the people she did. Without digging deep on the visit, it seemed quite out of place. What exactly was/is Ireland’s relationship with Syria at the time of Bashar al-Assad, if any?
Connolly’s decision to hire a dissident republican
This one made me feel worst about voting for Connolly. She hired a lady who had been convicted of gun running, although had served her time and was said to have been rehabilitated. That lady came recommended by Eamon O Cuiv, a Fianna Fáil (main Irish party) TD. This strikes me as an odd fact pattern and a dubious choice.
Connolly’s work as a barrister representing banks
Heather Humphreys’ targeting of Connolly for representing banks as a barrister during the financial crisis made me want to vote more for Connolly than for Humphreys.
Barristers’ jobs are to represent their clients in matters of law. The rules around eviction of tenants is set in law, and those laws can be updated and set by the Dáil (parliament). It’s true, you don’t have to choose banks as your client if you are a barrister. Still, it strikes me as unhelpful if serving banks disposing of property after a crisis is deemed socially unacceptable. There is a structured way to handle the difficult situations when loans cannot be paid, and legal representation and court cases provide that mechanism. If the laws are bad, then change those laws. If anything, that Connolly has this experience suggested to me she has some real world experience of thorny issues on housing and banking.
Connolly on Housing
Connolly opposed ending a 2023 moratorium on evictions. Yes, eviction moratoriums reduce the suffering of those risking eviction at a given point in time, but that comes at the expense of there being less rentals and less housing overall.
A law could also be passed that food manufacturers have to continue providing food even if customers stop paying. Pretty soon, there will be less food manufacturers, and less food.
If there are 70 homes and 100 families who want homes, it doesn’t matter what the eviction policy is, there are going to be 30 families that don’t get homes. The better policy is the one that best closes the gap over time between the homes there are and the homes people need. Ireland’s population, and demand for homes, is growing fast. We need more homes for purchase and for rent, not less homes and less rentals.
I am somewhat encouraged by new apartment buildings I see going up in Dublin, but pessimistic that Ireland can sufficiently increase housing supply. While price controls reduce the supply and quality of homes, the planning process is the larger barrier to increasing supply. Sadly, perhaps the planning system in Ireland does represent popular views. Many people don’t want building in their neighbourhood, don’t want build-to-rent developments – because they block home ownership – and don’t want build-to-buy because they are too expensive for people to afford. There is also an unfairly negative view of builders and developers (not unique to Ireland), which can mean ambivalence when it comes to supporting planning application and resisting objectors.
We could revamp the planning system, but perhaps that only can start with a more positive attitude towards development, and more social pressure on the concentrated groups that do block planning permission and building.
While the President does not create or directly influence policies, I am concerned that policies I see as reducing the supply of housing will be promoted.
The council of state
The President nominates members of a council of state – in addition to statutory members, such as former presidents – to provide guidance on what bills to refer to the Supreme Court. In the debate, both candidates were asked who they would appoint and neither appeared to have given it much thought. Humphreys made the point that the council should be 50-50 men and women, and suggested someone with climate change experience should be included. Factoring in a variety of perspectives seems important, but I’m often skeptical of strict gender quotas. My experience -in education and business – is that people don’t think the same of those who are chosen under a quota system. I’m not holding this view too strongly though. Maybe it’s fine or even good to have things 50-50. That said, climate change and gender quotas wouldn’t be the first things that come to mind for choosing a panel to assess constitutionality.
A high variance pick?
As a friend of mine put succinctly, Connolly is the high variance pick. There is upside if she can listen well, moderate and represent a variety of views. There is more downside if people latch on to her views around defence spending and housing. I’ll come back to read this in a few years, both to see how the presidency and my views have unfolded.