A couple of years ago, I drafted a new law about the parole process.
It’s now an operation.
If you or a family member where the victim of a serious crime that resulted in a life sentence, you can now have a say in whether the person who committed that crime should get early parole.
You’ll also, as a victim of crime, get legal aid to support you in that process.
Under the legislation, you, the victim or the victim’s family can make submissions to the parole board so that your voice can be heard when the perpetrators application for parole is being considered.
If you want to be involved in this process, a victim registration form is available online from the parole board.
You should have your say.

Jim O’Callaghan TD 

Today I introduced this Bill to make the international crime of aggression an offence under Irish law.
Although it became a crime under international law in 2010 it has yet to be incorporated into Irish law.
Art 29.8 of the constitution allows the state to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction.

Ashdown Park Hotel, Gorey, Co. Wexford.

Jim O’Callaghan TD 

The Execution of Liam Mellows 

I want to thank the Liam Mellows Commemoration Committee for the great honour of inviting me to address the official commemoration marking the centenary of his death.

At the time of his execution on 8 December 1922, Liam Mellows had been a prisoner in Mountjoy Prison for five months, having been arrested and imprisoned as one of the leaders of the anti-treaty IRA Garrison in the Four Courts.

He was executed by firing squad alongside Rory O’Connor, Joseph McKelvey and Dick Barrett.

Their executions by the Free State Government were in reprisal for the killing of Seán Hales TD by the IRA on 7 December 1922. Even though none of them could have had any involvement in Hales’ killing, the four were selected as representatives of each of Ireland’s provinces, with Mellows’ election for Galway in the 1921 general election qualifying him to fill that fatal role on behalf of Connacht.

Present at the execution was Canon John Pigott, one of the first army chaplains in the Free State Army, who subsequently recalled: 

“In a few minutes we were all in the prison yard and the four, all brave and calm, were lined up before the firing squad. I gave a last absolution and as I was having a final word with Rory and Liam, I saw Liam shuffle the gravel from under his feet so that he could stand up more firmly. I moved a few yards to the right and as I did so I heard Liam Mellows say his last words: ‘Slán Libh Lads’ – his farewell to the firing party. In another instant the sign was given; the volley rang out; the men fell, and Canon McMahon and I anointed them where they lay on the ground.” 

Notwithstanding the killing of Seán Hales on the previous day, the execution of Mellows and his colleagues received widespread condemnation. Later on the day of the executions the leader of the Labour Party, Thomas Johnson TD, questioned in Dáil Éireann whether any member of the Free State Government had any regard for the honour of Ireland or the good name of the state, and stated that he could not imagine that anyone could defend the action, save on grounds of vengeance: 

“You were charged with the care of those men; that was your duty as guardians of the law. You could have charged them with an offence. You held them as a defence, and your duty was to care for them. You thought it well not to try them, and not to bring them to the Courts, and then, because a man is assassinated who is held in honour, the government of this country announces apparently with pride that they have taken out four men, who were in their charge as prisoners, and as a reprisal for that assassination murdered them. These men, unless with the connivance of the government, could not have been engaged in any conspiracy when they have been in your charge for five months….There is no pretence of legality; there is not even the trial guaranteed under the rules authorised. The offence these men committed was an offence committed before July. So far as we know there has been no trial, and these men were executed as a reprisal.” 

The executions not only raised serious questions about the legality of the actions of the Free State Government but also its competence. Cathal O’Shannon, TD for Louth and Meath, challenged the Free State Government’s competence by stating: 

“I say that you are not able to carry on the government of this country. You would not be forced to the necessity, as you call it, of murdering the four men in Mountjoy this morning if you were competent. You would not. Instead of being able to follow up the assassins of Seán Hales and capture and try, and execute them for murder, you would not be forced, if you were competent, to go into Mountjoy and take four prisoners you had in your hands for four or five months.” 

During his contribution O’Shannon specifically referred to Mellows and asked whether any government TD was aware of the impact he had in Ireland during the previous decade: 

“Do you know that there is not a little nipper in the Fianna since 1912 right down to today, from the age of 8 years to 18 or 20 years, who will grow up within the next three years with nothing in his heart but revenge for the death of Liam Mellows?” 

Responding on behalf of the Free State Government, Richard Mulcahy TD, Minister for Defence, said: 

“The action that was taken this morning was taken as a deterrent action, taken to secure that this country shall not be destroyed and thrown into chaos by the toleration of any group of men acting together for the destruction, one by one, or in groups, of those single representative people that are the keystone of our government and of our society here.” 

Kevin O’Higgins TD, Minister for Home Affairs and Vice President of the Government, justified the executions by claiming that there were no real rules of war and that the safety and preservation of the people was the highest law.

Nonetheless, the illegality of the executions was recognised in the official report from the Free State Government which stated that the four had been executed: 

“as a reprisal for the assassination of Brig Hales TD, as a solemn warning for those associated with them who are engaged in the conspiracy of assassination against the representatives of the Irish people.” 

Opponents of the Treaty and members of the anti-treaty IRA viewed the executions as nothing less than murder, a view widely shared by international media. For instance, the New York Nation of 20 December 1922 described them as “murder foul and despicable and nothing else”.

Even that renowned propagandist for the Free State Government, P.S. O’Hegarty, accepted that “these reprisal executions were illegal.” 

Was Liam Mellows a Revolutionary Socialist? 

Unfortunately, the memory and contribution of Liam Mellows in Irish politics have been dominated by the impact his unlawful execution had on Irish politics during and in the aftermath of the Civil War.

Nonetheless, the outrage caused by his execution should not overshadow the political contribution and significance of his life.

As is apparent from the selected writings of Liam Mellows that have been excellently compiled by Conor McNamara in his Liam Mellows, Solider of the Irish Republic, published in 2019, Mellows played a significant role in the struggle for Irish independence and left behind a small but important body of writing that provides us with an insight into one of the most interesting, yet marginal, figures from the revolutionary era.

This address seeks to examine Liam Mellows’ contribution as a prominent and consistent opponent of imperialism, and how his anti-imperialist views were part of an international campaign that correctly and presciently viewed imperialism as the real obstacle to the self-determination of people subjected to colonial rule.

This is the contribution of which Liam Mellows and those who shared his political ideology can be proud, particularly as the negative legacy of empire has become increasingly more apparent in recent times.

The 1916 Rising and the War of Independence constituted a revolution against British rule in Ireland. Although socialists were involved, it was not a socialist revolution. As a country that had not developed an industrial base, it is unsurprising that a conflict between labour and capital was not at the forefront of the minds of those who espoused Irish independence.

Nonetheless, there were many, particularly James Connolly and subsequently Peadar O’Donnell and Ernie O’Malley, who viewed the Irish revolutionary struggle in predominantly class terms. Liam Mellows has frequently been viewed as a revolutionary socialist and, consequently, has also occupied a revered place for many on the Republican left. In part, this is due to the hagiography on Mellows written by the socialist republican C.Desmond Greaves.

However, it is questionable whether Mellows was, in fact, the revolutionary socialist that some have sought to portray. More probably, he was a radical anti-imperialist who viewed republicanism as the most appropriate method of destroying the imperialism he detested and that had created so much of the inequality and suppression of national identity that he witnessed. 

It was only in the last five months of his life whilst a prisoner in Mountjoy Prison that Mellows produced writings that have been interpreted as being the writings of a revolutionary socialist.

The most compelling evidence of Mellows socialist leanings is provided in the article he wrote for the Workers Republic, the newspaper of the Communist Party of Ireland, on 22 July 1922. This article is a scathing attack on the Labour Party, motivated in part by the fact that anti-treaty Republicans believed that Labour’s failure to support their campaign was a betrayal of working people.

His condemnation of the Labour Party for purporting to seek a Workers’ Republic whilst accepting the terms of the Treaty can, no doubt, be read as suggesting that the pursuit of a Workers’ Republic was Mellows’ objective. In criticising the Labour Party, he stated: 

“The Irish Labour Party talked glibly of a Workers’ Republic. It still pretends to have as its objective the establishment of such a State. Veiled threats of a big stick it intends to wield some day are thrown out for the credulous. Professing to be against militarism, its leaders try to delude the movement into believing that at some future date they will head a revolution. 

Labour played a tremendous part in the establishment and maintenance of the Republic. Its leaders had it in their power to fashion that Republic as they wished – to make it a Workers’ and Peasants’ Republic. By their acceptance of the Treaty and all that it connotes – recognition of the British monarchy, British Privy Council and British Imperialism; Partition of the country and subservience to British capitalism – they have betrayed not alone the Irish Republic but the Labour Movement in Ireland and the cause of the workers and peasants throughout the world.” 

It is probably more accurate, however, to suggest that Mellows’ real motivation in writing this article was his abhorrence of British imperialism rather than his devotion to a Workers’ Republic and his disbelief that those seeking the establishment of a Workers’ Republic would align themselves with a treaty arrangement that continued to support and endorse the constituent parts of British imperialism in Ireland. He viewed the Free State created by the Treaty as such a part: 

“It is a fallacy to believe that a Republic of any kind can be won through the shackled Free State. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. The Free State is British created, British controlled and served British Imperialist 

interests. It is the buffer erected between British Capitalism and the Irish Republic. A Workers’ Republic can be erected only on its ruins. The existing Irish Republic can be made the Workers’ and Peasants’ Republic if the Labour movement is true to the ideals of James Connolly and true to itself.” 

The high point of Mellows as revolutionary socialist is his article’s assessment of the significance of the Irish Republic: 

“The Irish Republic represents independence and the struggle has a threefold significance. It is political, it is intellectual, it is economic. It is political in the sense that it means complete separation from England and the British Empire. It is intellectual in as much as it represents the cultural expression of the Gaelic mind and Gaelic civilisation and the removal of the impress of English speech and English thought upon the Irish character. It is economic because the wresting of Ireland from the grip of English Capitalism can leave no thinking Irishman with the desire to build up and perpetuate in this country an economic system that had its roots in foreign domination….The Irish Republic stands therefore for the ownership of Ireland by the people of Ireland. It means that the means and processes of production must not be used for the profit or aggrandisement of any group or class. Ireland has not yet become industrialised. It never will if, in rejecting and casting off British Imperialism (and its off-spring the Free State and Northern Parliament) the Irish Workers insist that a native imperialism does not replace it. If the Irish people do not control Irish industries, transport, money and the soil of the country, then foreign or domestic capitalists will.” 

These writings fit fairly comfortably within a socialist perspective of the Irish revolutionary period and Mellows may have had a late conversion to the socialist cause as a result of his five-month imprisonment in Mountjoy.

What is more likely is that this article illustrates that his longstanding and consistent anti-imperialism was outraged by what he viewed as a Labour Party that was prepared to sustain and support a Free State that he viewed as a creation of British imperialism.

Probably a more accurate assessment of Mellows’ politics is not that he was a revolutionary socialist but that he was primarily an anti-imperialist who was committed to tearing down the imperialist structures that dominated life in Ireland and Europe at that time.

Support for this analysis comes from Mellows himself who was aware that his article in the Workers Republic was being presented as support for a socialist uprising.

In a letter to Seán Etchingham he rejected as silly the suggestion that what he described as these “hastily written outline of ideas” could be branded as “communistic.” 

The International Anti-Imperialism of Liam Mellows 

The consistent and dominant political ideology that is apparent from the writings and speeches of Liam Mellows is anti-imperialism. Although his politics were formed by the actions of the British Empire in Ireland, his detestation of imperialism went beyond that of its involvement in Ireland. At a meeting in New York’s Central Opera House in November 1918 Mellows told the large crowd: 

“The Romanovs are gone, the Habsburgs are gone, the House of Hohenzollern is gone and then it is said that there is peace because the power of the German Empire is broken. But there can be no peace until another Royal House, the House of Hanover – pardon me, I mean Windsor – is gone and with it all the English Aristocrats – the Lansdownes, the Milners, the Balfours – and the power of another empire that rode roughshod over the peoples of the world, the British Empire, 

is gone. When that occurs, the world will be liberated from the foulest tyranny that has ever cursed it, and from its ruins will arise a free Ireland, a free India, a free Egypt, a free Africa.” 

Earlier on his American visit, he gave a speech at the Washburn Theatre, Chester, Pennsylvania on 23 April 1918 where again he sought to internationalise the Irish struggle: 

“The Irish people stand for a cause that is as great as that of any race; a cause as great as that which Belgium stands for; a cause as great as the liberty of Serbia and Montenegro. They stand for a cause which has lived for longer than that of any of these other countries, because Belgium and Serbia have been persecuted for three years, and Ireland has suffered for 750 years.” 

He then positioned Ireland as being integral to the imperial expansion of England. He suggested that Ireland became the jumping off place for the expansion of the British Empire and that the foundations of the British Empire were laid in British policy in Ireland: 

“England has very good reasons for keeping Ireland down. The very future and safety of her Empire depends on her holding Ireland. If proof were needed, we have a very recent statement made by an organisation known as the British Navy League, composed of Officers of the British Navy. In a memorandum presented to the British Cabinet several months ago, they stated that the position of Ireland is vital to England, because Ireland contains 18 harbours, possession of which by England is necessary in order that England control the trade routes of the world. Further on, they state that Ireland is the Heligoland of the Atlantic. You will find therein the reason why England keeps Ireland down; Ireland being the Heligoland of the Atlantic is necessary for England’s own aggrandisement.” 

Mellows’ subsequent opposition to the Treaty was consistent with his anti-imperialist views and was based on his assessment that the Treaty was a product of the British Empire which he viewed as representing “nothing but the concentrated tyranny of ages.” In his speech to Dáil Éireann on 4 January 1922 opposing the Treaty he framed his opposition within a condemnation of the British Empire: 

“Under this Treaty the Irish people are going to be committed within the British Empire. We have always in this country protested against being included within the British Empire. Now we are told that we are going into it with our heads up. The British Empire stands to me in the same relationship as the Devil stands to religion. The British Empire represents to me nothing but the concentrated tyranny of ages….It means to me that terrible thing that has spread its tentacles all over the earth, that has crushed the lives out of people and exploited its own when it could not exploit anybody else. That British Empire is the thing that has crushed this country; yet we are told that we are going into it now with our heads up. We are going into the British Empire now to participate in the Empire’s shame even though we do not actually commit the act, to participate in the shame and the crucifixion of India and the degradation of Egypt. Is that what the Irish people fought for freedom for?” 

Mellows was correct in his criticism and condemnation of imperialism in general and the British Empire in particular because of the oppression, discrimination and racism upon which they were built. In this regard, his political ideology aligns comfortably with more recent historical assessments of the tactics and devastating consequences of imperialism.

Those tactics used in the expansion of the British Empire both before and after the American War of Independence were similar to the tactics that were used consistently in Ireland. An integral part of maintaining imperial control was the use of violence against native populations. In the imperial mindset of Rudyard Kipling these were the “savage wars of peace”. As Caroline Elkins illustrates in her History of the British Empire Legacy of Violence, skin colour became the mark of difference between those in the Empire who were viewed as civilised and uncivilised. She notes, however, that in Ireland and indeed within the Afrikaner population of South Africa skin colour was not the marker of local populations differences. Instead, it was a constructed skin colour: 

“In effect, Britain radicalised the Irish and Afrikaners, equating their cultures to those of brown and black subjects, sometimes using dehumanising language to describe their physical appearances and living conditions, and believing that just like the Xhosa of South Africa or the Chinese in Malaya, the Irish and Afrikaners were “backward” populations that needed to be civilised.” 

Oppression and violence became a central part of the British Empire’s control of its colonies notwithstanding the fact that many of its imperial defenders viewed its mission in a positive light as being a civilising mission. Even if such a benign interpretation is in part accepted, it is hard to avoid the conclusion reached by Elkins when she writes: 

“If Britain’s civilising mission was reformist in its claims, it was brutal nonetheless. Violence was not just the British Empire’s midwife, it was endemic to the structures and systems of British Rule. It was not just an occasional means to liberal imperialisms end; it was a means and an end for as long as the British Empire remained alive. Without it, Britain could not have maintained its sovereign claims to its colonies.” 

In fairness, there was also awareness at the time of Ireland’s independence, including amongst historians, of the oppressive impact of imperialism. Dorothy Macardle concluded her major work The Irish Republic in 1937 by noting how political thought was then advancing in Britain: 

“The exploitation of the weak by the strong has been named by its just name, aggression; the law of the jungle falls into disrepute; a generation of Englishmen with new ideals of State craft is taking the reins of power.” 

This international view of imperialism that was at the forefront of Mellows’ political thinking was influenced, as can be seen in his writings and speeches, by global events, particularly those that occurred after the end of the First World War.

Consequently, Mellows and the Irish Independence struggle receive a more accurate and fairer appraisal when the events of one hundred years ago in Ireland are viewed in the context of those other significant global events.

The Irish independence struggle was not only impacted by global events but also influenced them.

This latter view was recognised by Sir Henry Wilson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, who noted that “if we lose Ireland we have lost the Empire.”

This international nature of the Irish Revolution has also more recently been recognised in The Irish Revolution A Global History where the editors in their introduction note: 

“The Irish Revolution, then, was fundamentally a transnational event. Funds for the Republican movement poured in via the expanse of networks of diaspora nationalism; its leaders, in both their ideologies and their military tactics, were profoundly influenced by experiences abroad; and the violence that defined events in Ireland between 1916 and 1923 emerged against a backdrop of comparable revolutionary and anti-colonial movements elsewhere in Europe and around the world. Despite emerging in such a fundamentally international context, much of the foundation or historiography on the revolution engages only tangentially, or not at all, with its inherent transnationalism.” 

Liam Mellows’ Legacy and Cultural Equality

To where then does the anti-imperialism of Liam Mellows from a century ago direct those who are, or view themselves as, his political successors? What can members of Fianna Fáil learn from the life of Liam Mellows one hundred years after his execution?

We will never know whether Mellows, like so many others who opposed the Treaty, would have continued to align himself with Éamon de Valera after he had left Sinn Féin and established Fianna Fáil in 1926. But we do know that Fianna Fáil was founded four years after Mellows’ death by people who shared his belief that imperialism had inflicted grave damage on the Irish people.

They believed that the Irish people should be entitled to determine their own governance and their own future free from external influence and the societal hierarchy imposed by imperialism. It was this anti-imperialism that was one of the defining characteristics of Fianna Fáil in its early years. 

In trying to decipher Liam Mellows’ legacy it is useful to start by developing an accurate assessment of the international impact of imperialism and the damage it inflicted on many colonised countries.

This damage was recognised very recently by the President of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, in his speech to the Houses of Parliament on 22 November 2022 where he noted that the relationship between Great Britain and South Africa was “a relationship that was founded in colonialism and conflict, dispossession and degradation”.

Today, the legacy of imperialism can be seen in many countries whose governance and welfare continue to be damaged by the consequences of imperialism. At the heart of imperialism was the promotion of a political agenda and form of governance that was founded on supremacy and inequality, particularly cultural inequality.

The impact and effect of this cultural inequality in Ireland is now subsiding because as a country it has successfully unburdened itself of most, although not all, of the damaging consequences imposed by imperialism, and has attempted to do so by promoting the principle of equality. 

Equality has a specific legal meaning as is apparent from the status afforded to it in many fundamental legal documents.

The 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted on 9 July 1868, contained an equal protection clause which required that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Weimar Constitution of 1919 set forth individual rights of Germans, one of which was equality before the law.

The Irish Free State Constitution contained no equality provision but Article 40.1 of de Valera’s Bunreacht na hÉireann provides that “All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law”. More recently, equality as a rule to prohibit discrimination was given further recognition in the European Convention of Human Rights that contains a direct prohibition of such discrimination and the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights that contains a Chapter on Equality.

Most of these measures have ensured that the implementation of equality by states is limited to ensuring that the operation of their laws do not discriminate. 

Equality in politics is a more nebulous ideal with an elastic political meaning that focuses mainly on economic equality and/ or cultural equality.

Economic equality assesses the manner by which resources and capital are distributed in order to lessen or reduce differences in wealth. On the other hand, cultural equality seeks to ensure that cultural differences are respected in order to achieve equality.

Consequently, economic equality seeks to achieve convergence whilst cultural equality seeks to recognise and respect divergence. In effect, cultural equality presents the principle of equality in a way that acknowledges and celebrates differences. 

The partition of Ireland in 1921 was an event that most certainly did not acknowledge and celebrate differences. Instead it undermined any notion of cultural equality by dividing people living on the island based on their religious and cultural differences.

It was a crude imperial measure but one that was not unique to Ireland. The partition of India was also imposed by a departing British government as a measure to resolve what it perceived would be internal nativist unrest. It resulted in widespread migration and sectarian violence.

Although today Pakistan and India are viewed as being necessarily separate, this should not prevent an accurate assessment of the reasons behind the use of partition. As Yasmin Khan noted in what was probably the finest work on the partition of India: 

“The partition of 1947 is also a loud reminder, should we care to listen, of the dangers of colonial interventions and the profound difficulties that dog regime change. It stands testament to the follies of Empire, which ruptures community evolution, distorts historical trajectories and forces violent State formation from societies that would otherwise have taken different – and unknowable – paths. Partition is a lasting lesson of both the dangers of imperial hubris and the reactions of extreme nationalism.” 

Partition in Ireland resulted in less chaos than India but it did result in migration and sectarian violence. It also ensured that Ireland did not take a different, and unknowable, path. However, the paths that were taken are known and can be assessed with the benefit of 100 years of knowledge.

Both paths encountered very rough terrain for the first 75 years but any objective assessment of the paths taken must conclude that the path of independence is now a more economically successful, politically stable and culturally diverse path.

Although the risks associated with independence were enormous, the changes that have occurred in global politics during the past century, where cultural equality has overwhelmed imperialism, have empowered and vindicated that path. 

The unknowable path down which the island did not proceed 100 years ago may have included more migration and more sectarian violence.

Today, however, as a result of the diminution of extreme nationalism and extreme loyalism, the motivation and basis for such violence no longer exists amongst the vast majority of reasonable people resident on the island who now overwhelmingly support the principle of cultural equality.

The dangers and fears that prompted the partition of Ireland are no longer present, although the sectarianism that existed on the island a century ago has regrettably survived within Northern Ireland where the external influence of global politics has been slower to penetrate. 

The effect of partition was that cultural inequality was imposed throughout the island because it was believed that an independent Ireland could not accommodate different cultures and religions. Instead, two jurisdictions were created where cultural equality was viewed as being unnecessary. Today, it is accepted that cultural respect and recognition is essential in order to achieve cultural equality.

This was recognised by the Canadian Supreme Court in Andrews v Law Society of British Colombia ISCR 143 where the Court said that “The accommodation of differences is the essence of true equality.” Or as Professor of Political Theory, Judith Squires, has written: 

“Equality now appears to require a respect for difference rather than a search for similarities. It also tends to focus on the importance of equality between groups rather than between individuals, incorporating an analyses of the systems and structures that constitute and perpetuate the inequalities under consideration in the first place.” 

In considering what role equality can play in assessing the continuation of partition, it should be acknowledged that it is extremely difficult to discuss this issue objectively without being influenced by the politics of its imposition.

Similarly, any debate about Irish reunification has, to date, been framed too much in the context of Ireland’s past. Since the negative consequences of our shared and difficult history with Britain are now subsiding and the politics of imperialism have been overtaken by the political imperative of cultural equality, it is now time for those who wish to see an end to partition to frame that issue in the context of the promotion of cultural equality on the island.

In doing so, the negative impact of partition as a colonial measure should neither be ignored nor airbrushed from history, but its relevance for the future should be acknowledged as being limited. Inevitably, there will be groups in Ireland who will continue to see partition through the past rather than the future but that should not dilute the fact that the only legitimate reason to end partition is in order to see an improvement in the lives of people on the island, not to address an historic grievance. 

Promoting Equality through Reunification

Fianna Fáil wants to see a united Ireland. It is the party’s primary aim and objective . Members of Fianna Fáil should not be hesitant or diffident about expressing this political ambition and how they think it can best be achieved.

Frequently in politics the easier and less risky path for an established political party is to seek no change until change becomes inevitable.

That is not a path that Fianna Fáil can follow. As a party that has played a defining role in Ireland’s progress over the past 100 years, Fianna Fáil must be central to the debate about any constitutional change on the island. It is a difficult and complicated issue but because of the terms of the Good Friday Agreement it is an issue that will not fade from the political agenda. If Fianna Fáil fails to lead this debate, it will be dominated by other parties and political groupings whose respect for consent and commitment to cultural equality may not be as inclusive as Fianna Fáil’s.

In truth, Fianna Fáil has a responsibility to all groups on the island, many who would never vote for it, to lead this debate. It also has a duty to its members because a political party that does not campaign for change in order to achieve its objectives will be viewed as passive. 

If Fianna Fáil is serious about seeking to achieve Irish reunification it needs to recognise that cultural equality will be an absolute necessity in order to alleviate concerns that many in Northern Ireland have about a unitary state. Cultural equality in this context will mean that the cultural and religious differences of people on the island will need to be identified as meriting special protection.

Although Ireland in 2022 is culturally, religiously and ethnically much more diverse than it was one hundred years ago, the main resistance to reunification still emanates from those who believe their cultural loyalty to Great Britain and its Monarch will not be protected in any new unitary state.

A clear commitment to protect and recognise such cultural differences will be necessary in order to illustrate the benefits that can arise through reunification and to provide comfort to those who have legitimate concerns about the influence any new unitary state may have on their cultural or religious identity. 

The success of the Good Friday Agreement is that all elected political groups on the island now recognise that any constitutional change in Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland. Fianna Fáil for many decades before the Agreement fully accepted this principle of consent. To date, there has been no majority within Northern Ireland for Irish reunification and this has been and must continue to be respected.

However, if that changes in the future, then a necessary corollary to the respect that peaceful nationalists have shown for Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom is that unionism must respect the wish of the majority of people in Northern Ireland to become part of a united Ireland. It is not a political path down which Unionists wish to travel but in a world where democracy needs to be protected it would simply be perverse if such a mandate from the majority of people in Northern Ireland was not openly respected.

In seeking to persuade the people of Northern Ireland of the benefits of reunification, a guarantee of cultural equality for all groups on the island will ensure that the failure of both jurisdictions in the aftermath of partition to respect the rights of minorities will not be repeated. 

Ireland and its revolutionary struggle was an inspiration to other colonised countries that sought and achieved their independence.

Few have progressed as strongly and successfully as Ireland. More importantly, few have changed as significantly and unpredictably as Ireland.

The imposition of partition a century ago was a response to the politics that then existed in Ireland and the world. But those politics are now gone. The fall of imperialism and the rise of equality, particularly cultural equality, are two of the most significant political changes of the past century. 

Unfortunately, the violence inflicted in the past has cast a dark and influential shadow, but in recent years that darkness has lessened because of the success of politics. As we gather here to commemorate the violent death 100 years ago of Liam Mellows, we should also be positive in the knowledge that next April we will celebrate the Good Friday Agreement where it was agreed that political differences and challenges on this island cannot and will not be resolved through violence but only through respect, debate and democracy. 

It would be an inspiration to many countries that are marred by sectarian violence and political division if the people of a post-colonial country, partitioned through colonial intervention, decided in their collective best interests to reverse that partition and unite again in order to promote and protect their diversity.

Should this be achieved, Ireland would certainly have completed a remarkable and unpredictable colonial journey that concluded with its people being in a stronger position because of their ability to respect diversity and protect cultural equality whilst recognising their overwhelming common interest and similarities.

That would be a unique international achievement. 

Jim O’Callaghan TD 

June 2022

Introduction 

The killing of Ashling Murphy in January 2022 and the unlawful killing of many other women in recent years were not just brutal acts of violence that shocked the nation, they also highlighted the fear that exists amongst women in our society for their personal safety.

These brutal deaths enabled women in Ireland to talk about their fear. More importantly, Ashling Murphy’s death and the death of other women through acts of violence forced society to listen to that fear.

But it should not have required brutal killings for this very real fear to be heard and taken seriously.

These brutal acts of violence have highlighted the need for our society and our political system to address that fear urgently and comprehensively, and to take an honest look at how the system responds and meets the needs of women.

We continue to see, in Ireland and elsewhere, male violence being perpetrated against women, and women being fearful because of the threat of violence.

This is a problem that is not to be measured solely by counting the number of women who have been killed or who are missing. Those events represent every woman’s worst nightmare and they contribute enormously to the general sense of fear.

However the problem extends beyond those harrowing statistics and the unlawful killing of women.

This is a problem that should be measured by the assaults on women, most of which go unreported.

This is a problem that should be measured by the volume – and acceptance of – harassment of women as they go about their daily life, with most of it going unchallenged.

This is a problem that should be measured by the intimidatory control that is exerted over women, most of which remains hidden behind doors or in silence.

We see this manifesting itself most often where a man abuses a woman he is in a relationship with simply because he believes that he should be able to assert control over that woman.

We also see this manifesting itself where some men simply believe they have the right to use intimidation or violence to control or impose themselves on or attack a woman they do not know.

As we stand today, there are some men in Ireland who believe that women should be controlled by and submissive to them, and that violence and coercive control is an acceptable way of achieving those aims. Changing this requires a dramatic change in the views those men have of women and in what they see as acceptable behaviour. This needs to be led by all of us.

What we have done to date to protect women from the threat and fear of violence is not enough. It is unacceptable that many women are fearful of being out in public on their own whatever the time of day or night and in whatever circumstances.

We know that many women and girls face additional barriers and vulnerabilities due to additional social discrimination, for example based on their ethnicity, ability, age or immigration status and this needs to be tackled.

The time is long overdue for this to change. Too many women and too many families have suffered. We need to ask ourselves what sort of a society we want to live in safely, and what is needed to make this happen.

Male violence against women including domestic violence remains extensive in the EU and has also been exacerbated by the pandemic.

The scale of violence against women is great and it comes in different and insidious forms such as domestic violence, sexual assault, rape, sexual harassment, stalking, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, child marriage, prostitution and trafficking.

There are many different types of costs to this: not least that failing to address violence against women including domestic violence costs money – an estimated €289 billion a year.

We know that men are also victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, and our focus here does not come at the expense of their protection and safety.

There are many different factors that need to be tackled and we need a whole of society response where we all play our part – not just a criminal justice response – to ensure that we confront this threat not just to women but to society, and that we ensure that victims of crime access justice and safety.

This document sets out what the Fianna Fáil party sees as needed across the:

• criminal justice and family law sectors;

• supports and service provision, and

• education and culture change.

We need a zero-tolerance approach to violence against women and this will require all of us – as a society – to commit to change. Enough is enough.

Criminal Justice and Family Law Sectors

Tougher laws and sentencing 

There is a small but significant cohort of men in our society who carry out violent acts on others with a sense of impunity. Our society should not tolerate such violence and we need to send out this clear message at as early a stage as possible. 

Part of the solution to this problem is the strengthening of our laws so that all violence is met with a tougher response.

We need to see those convicted of serious violence against women receiving sentences that are longer.

There also needs to be more certainty as to the length of sentence that a perpetrator will receive if convicted of such acts of violence. 

Our political system has the power to introduce tougher laws to deter this type of criminal activity and this needs to happen urgently. 

We need to toughen laws associated with all levels of violence and, in particular, we need to target perpetrators when they start displaying behaviour that is threatening and which may lead to more serious violence unless checked at an early stage. 

Increasing penalties for serious assault or unlawful killing alone will have limited effect. We know that the damage has likely been done by the time those offences occur and the opportunity to divert a young man from violence has been lost.

Also, penalties may well be severe enough in legislation, but not in sentencing practice. 

Tougher laws need to target people who engage in all levels of criminal violence against others, particularly women.

The following changes are urgently needed to tackle this issue through early intervention. 

Legislate against stalking 

The Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person (Amendment) (Stalking) Bill 2021 was introduced by Senators Lisa Chambers, Mary Fitzpatrick and Erin McGreehan in July 2021.

In its 2016 Report on Harmful Communications and Digital Safety, the Law Reform Commission recommended that a specific stalking offence should be enacted and it said that stalking is an aggravated form of harassment characterised by repeated, unwanted contact that occurs as a result of fixation or obsession and causes alarm, distress or harm to the victim. 

This element of intense obsession or fixation, which creates an unwanted intimacy between the stalker and the victim, differentiates stalking from harassment.

The Commission analysed developments in Scotland, England and Wales where specific stalking offences were introduced in 2010 and 2012 respectively and it concluded that the experiences of these jurisdictions strongly suggest that the introduction of specific stalking offences led to an increase in reporting and prosecution of stalking.

The Commission specifically said that stalking as an offence also carries great significance for its victims because of the “hidden” nature of the crime, as well as its aggravated nature compared to the crime of harassment. 

Prohibit sexual harassment in public places 

Article 40 of the Istanbul Convention on preventing and competing violence against women and domestic violence requires countries to take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person, in particular when creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment, should be subject to criminal or other legal sanction. 

At present in Ireland that is not the case. 

Legislation prohibiting sexual harassment should be introduced immediately to ensure that Ireland’s laws are consistent with the Istanbul Convention. 

A person should be guilty of an offence if they engage in any form of unwanted conduct of a sexual nature towards another person and either: 

i. intends to cause that other person harassment, alarm or distress; or 

ii. is reckless whether the conduct has that effect. 

We need to send a clear message to women that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated anymore, and they are supported. 

Such legislation would give statutory recognition to the fact that it is unacceptable intentionally or recklessly to harass sexually another person. 

The introduction of this legislation should be accompanied by a clear public information campaign highlighting the unacceptability of this type of behaviour, where someone can go for help, and the consequences for perpetrators. 

Strengthen bail laws 

In 1996, 75% of voters approved of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution which provided that a court can refuse bail to a suspect where it feared that while at liberty that suspect would commit a serious criminal offence.

We know that a significant percentage of crime carried out is carried out by individuals on bail, including rape and sexual assaults. In 2016 individuals on bail were charged with 24 rapes and sexual assaults. 

Our bail laws need to be strengthened to remove this risk. Those accused of rape or sexual assault or serious assault who have previous convictions for rape or sexual assault or serious assault should be refused bail unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Bail applications are not victim centred, with little or no consultation with victims. Many of the offences committed by perpetrators of domestic violence are summary offences with a maximum sentence of less than 5 years.

Under our bail laws, bail can only be refused for offences where the maximum sentence is greater than 5 years.

We support the proposal made by Women’s Aid in their 2019 Unheard and Uncounted report which suggested that our Bail Act should be extended to cover all offences with a domestic violence motive, including summary offences. 

Tougher sentences for sexual assault and violent offences 

At present the maximum sentence that can be imposed by a court for sexual assault is a fine and/or a maximum term of 10 years imprisonment.

The maximum sentence for assault causing harm is a fine and/or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years.

The maximum sentence for a threat to kill or cause serious harm is a fine and/or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years.

The maximum sentence for harassment is a fine and/or term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years.

Sentences are decided by judges based on the individual circumstances of each case. 

However, it is open to the Oireachtas to set maximum sentences. 

The maximum sentences set out above are too light and, more importantly, courts are handing down sentences that on occasion are inappropriately low.

There needs to be sentencing guidelines to overcome this inconsistency in sentencing.

There also needs to be the collation of more data on sentencing from the courts to give greater visibility on sentencing standards and on the relationship between the perpetrator and victim. 

Our law should specify a threshold of imprisonment that should apply if a person is convicted of any of these offences and has a previous conviction for one of these offences. 

Repeat offending is a clear characteristic of our criminal justice system and if offenders are repeatedly engaging in acts of violence the State needs to ensure that a more severe and tougher response through imprisonment is delivered. 

We are aware, however, that because of the Supreme Court decision in Ellis v The Minister for Justice and Equality, the Oireachtas is not permitted to enact a law that distinguishes, for more severe punishment, a limited group of people convicted of an offence on the grounds that they had previously committed another similar serious offence.

Nonetheless, that decision did not preclude presumptive or indicative minimum sentences.

These should be examined and enacted by the Oireachtas to achieve a more effective response and deterrent against such violent crimes. 

Finally, we also considered applying tougher laws to men convicted of offences against women but believe that such a provision would be open to constitutional challenge because of its potential violation of the principle of equality contained within Article 40.1 of the Constitution.

Improve access to protection orders 

The family law process can be very demanding for those who need to make frequent visits to the court. 

When a victim of domestic violence first makes contact with the Gardaí, a risk assessment should be conducted on that victim, and the risk posed by the offender assessed.

It is vital that this risk assessment does not become a ‘tick box’ exercise, and that adequate training in conducting and interpreting responses to risk assessments be given to Gardaí.

Unless done properly, these assessments could create enhanced risk by creating blind spots to potential harm. 

Consideration should be given to changing our laws to enable the authorities to secure immediate protection for the victim if the risk posed by the offender causes concern and a delay in securing a protection order from the court can have catastrophic consequences for the complainant.

There is provision already under Section 11 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 for the Child and Family Agency to apply on behalf of a party for protective orders. Extending this role to the Gardaí would enable additional protection. 

It is important that immediate action can be taken by Gardaí when safety, barring and protection orders are breached. 

Strengthen knife crime laws 

A society that is prepared to tolerate knife crime by young men will become a more violent and threatening society. 

The number of people treated as in-patients in Irish hospitals in 2019 for knife assault injuries was 9% higher than in 2018. Also, the number of knives being seized by Gardaí is increasing every year which is a sign of increased knife carrying, especially amongst young men. 

Consequently, the penalties for carrying a knife with intent to cause harm should be increased. At present, the maximum sentence for such an offence is a fine and/or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years. This should be doubled to 10 years.

Increase wrap-around supports during the courts process 

We need to ensure that victims of rape, sexual assault or any assault who make a complaint that is prosecuted in court are always given detailed information about the court process and that they are entitled to legal assistance in respect of that prosecution. 

Work continues around educating the judiciary and associated services about the need for particular sensitivity around cases involving violence against women.

We need to continue to work to ensure that our courts are more considerate and caring for the needs of victims. This has improved in recent years but there is still a requirement that victims and their families are given greater recognition and practical support during the court process. 

More broadly, courts and the judiciary must become more aware of how court processes can be weaponised to extend control over ex-partners in domestic violence cases. All court assessors and experts should be required to have extensive domestic violence training. 

Victim impact statements given in court should be preserved and available – with the consent of the victim – after the trial process so that the narratives of victims’ experiences are preserved. 

Women who are subjected to domestic violence require the protection not just of criminal law but also family law. Many of the facilities provided by the State for the practice of family law are unsuitable and inappropriate for the needs of all users. 

We need a full audit of our courthouses to assess their suitability to cater for domestic violence victims and those bringing applications.

The vast majority are inadequate, and victims have to wait in crowded corridors with their aggressors.

Separate meeting rooms must be provided not only for those applying for orders under the Domestic Violence Act 2018, but also women in court for divorce, separation and child matters in a context of domestic violence.

Coercive control and abuse plays out in all court proceedings if it is a factor. 

Review the civil legal aid system 

We know that many solicitors are not taking on work under the private practitioner scheme, particularly for domestic violence cases. 

A full review of the civil legal aid system is needed to ensure that many victims of domestic violence are not prevented from accessing justice. An increase in funding and expansion of eligibility rules for victims of domestic violence is urgently needed.

Establish a central child maintenance collections agency 

A central child maintenance collections agency run by the State should be established, as part of the commitment to reform our child maintenance system and address key issues as contained in the Programme for Government. 

When a woman gets a maintenance order there can often be non-compliance which can impact upon her and children or she can be ‘targeted’ through this as a continued method of control.

It is then her responsibility to make another application to court to seek further orders because of the non-payment.

This archaic system needs to change so that we have a central child maintenance collection agency that does not require ongoing court applications. 

Comprehensive policing supports 

Allocate Garda staff to tackle violence against women 

Unprovoked and gratuitous violent attacks on people in public places could be deterred and reduced as a result of greater Garda visibility in those public places. It is pointless having large numbers of Gardaí doing administrative work in stations.

That work should be carried out by civilian members of the force, enabling more Gardaí to be out in the community. 

In terms of community supports, the roll out of Small Areas Policing Programme will go towards ensuring that adequate levels of Community Gardaí are in place on the ground. 

Safer public transport for women 

All Irish rail and bus services, including DART and Luas, should also be required to have security provided on their transport systems and a zero-tolerance policy towards any type of harassment of women. 

The establishment of a dedicated public transport Garda division will allow for the effective and timely follow up of all forms of antisocial and criminal activity on public transport, including deterrence. 

Track day to day violence against women  

The daily harassment of women is not acceptable. We need to support the Gardaí to establish a portal where gratuitous acts of violence can be reported.

One of the difficulties with combatting acts of male violence against women is that many bystanders feel very hesitant about getting involved.

They don’t know what to do. An online portal should be available for information to be communicated direct to the Gardaí about acts of violence that occur in the public place.

This will act as an invaluable tool to allow them to investigate and prosecute such offences. 

Unfortunately, there are many public places throughout the country – whether it be in parks or other city streets – where criminal activity takes place openly and without any apparent Garda response.

Open drug taking or fights in broad daylight appear to be tolerated as part of normal society. Such behaviour is not acceptable and there should be no type of criminal activity that can take place with impunity in any public place. 

If men believe that breaking the law can be done openly then they will not regard other laws for the protection of women or the prohibition of violence as deserving of respect.

Jim O’Callaghan TD 

15 September 2022

Everyone at this event believes that the future of the people living on this island would be better served by reunification. No one here needs to convince other speakers or attendees of the benefits of Ireland and Northern Ireland becoming a single united entity.

However, we do need to try to convince others: those who are not interested in reunification, those who are ambivalent about it, and those who are opposed to it, many vehemently so. Some people within those groups may be persuaded to engage with the issue, but there are others who simply won’t engage because they believe engagement is a form of endorsement. That is understandable and should not be ignored.

Irrespective of whether people engage with the issue or not, people who are ambivalent or opposed are entitled to know that a United Ireland would be built on a number of fundamental principles that would ensure equality and respect for all persons living within any new entity. There is also an obligation on those who espouse a United Ireland to promote and emphasise those principles.

It would be helpful to the discussion of this important question if the people who have come here today, from diverse political backgrounds, recognised and emphasised principles upon which a United Ireland would be founded and which could not be abrogated. I therefore propose seven principles or protections or indeed covenants that people who advocate reunification should agree to and, in some instances, concede. The objective of these principles (and others that may be proposed) is to generate a sense of protection and belonging for everyone who may become part of a new Ireland, and to facilitate any negotiations in the aftermath of a border poll.

1.      In a new Ireland people of all religions and none and people of all ethnicities would be treated equally before the law. Irish history both before and after partition is littered with examples of discrimination against religions. A United Ireland will guarantee that all religions would be respected, and the practice or non-practice of religion would be vindicated by the State.

2.      In a new Ireland the cultural identity of different groups on the island would be cherished and defended. A Loyalist flute band and the Kilfenora Céilí Band would be equally valued as expressions of the different cultural richness that exists on the island. A United Ireland will guarantee that the Ulster Scots and British Heritage of people living on the island will be equally as valued and protected as the Gaelic and Old Irish Heritage. A United Ireland will also guarantee that the heritage of new Irish people who come from outside the Orange and Green traditions will also be equally cherished and valued.

3.      In a new Ireland the people of Northern Ireland will not become politically submerged under the control of the new State. Consequently, a United Ireland will guarantee that Stormont – whether under a federal system or a bicameral system – will be a house of legislature that will continue to make laws.

4.      A new Ireland will be a member of the European Union and will be an open economy that will actively promote and attract foreign direct investment. The economy of Northern Ireland needs greater attention and investment. Consequently, a United Ireland will guarantee that for the first twenty years of its existence foreign direct investment shall be equally shared between both former jurisdictions.

5.      Although States frequently demand the loyalty of their citizens, many people in Northern Ireland will remain loyal to the British Crown even if there is constitutional change. They cannot and should not be forced to change that loyalty. Consequently, a United Ireland will guarantee that it will not demand the loyalty of all persons living on the island. A new Ireland must earn, not demand, the loyalty of its citizens.

6.      A new Ireland will ensure that there are very close east-west relations between the central and devolved Governments of our two islands. A United Ireland will guarantee that the British/Irish Council and the British/Irish Intergovernmental Conference established under the Good Friday Agreement will continue, and will be actively worked to encourage closer co-operation and excellent relations between Great Britain and Ireland.

7.      The violence perpetrated in support of a United Ireland in the past has had a lasting and negative impact on many who oppose reunification. Those who advocate Irish reunification guarantee that at no stage will they engage in or support violence to promote their desired political objective and to achieve constitutional change.

If those who advocate a new Ireland can guarantee core principles such as those outlined here, there will be an opportunity for those who oppose Irish reunification to appreciate that even if the majority of people of Northern Ireland vote for a unitary State, the rights, privileges and culture of minorities within that new Ireland, and the distinctive circumstances of Northern Ireland, will be unambiguously protected and cherished.

Finally, it is important to recognise and emphasise that a United Ireland is not going to result in homogenous political views on this island. In fact, the political diversity and competing political viewpoints that are present in this room today will exist in a United Ireland even though the attendees here share a common approach on this one issue. It should be noted that, aside from this issue, the varied political views of those in Northern Ireland who oppose Irish reunification are reflected in this room and throughout the rest of the island.

Brian Lenihan Memorial Lecture

Jim O’Callaghan TD 

University of Cambridge

15 September 2022

Preliminary 

Brian Lenihan was appointed Ireland’s Minister for Finance on 7 May 2008. At the time he assumed office he did not have any understanding of how politically and personally traumatic would be his tenure. When politicians assume ministerial office they generally have a broad awareness of the problems they must tackle and challenges they must face during their impending term of office. No such privilege was afforded to Brian Lenihan. Within 5 months of taking office Ireland’s banking system came close to collapse leading to a financial and banking crisis that eroded Ireland’s financial independence. Brian Lenihan was required to introduce 3 government budgets within the space of 14 months, nationalise many of Ireland’s banks and establish a statutory agency, the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA”), to purchase defaulting loans from those banks in order to provide some prospect of future viability for Ireland’s banking system. The austerity measures introduced within those budgets had a very severe impact on most Irish citizens and devastating political consequences for Lenihan and his government colleagues.

As Ireland’s political and financial crisis grew, Brian Lenihan was required to perform one of the most humiliating acts of any contemporary Irish politician when, on behalf of Ireland, he sought and received an €85 billion bailout from the European Union (EU) and the International Monetary Fund. This humiliation was not lessened by the fact that the bailout was part of the European Sovereign Debt Crisis that was then dominating the Eurozone. In an interview in April 2011 he identified the terrible role he, as Minister for Finance, had to play when travelling to Brussels to sign the bailout agreement, being on his own at Dublin airport

“and looking at the snow gradually thawing and thinking to myself, this is terrible. No Irish Minister has ever had to do this before. I had fought for two and a half years to avoid this conclusion. I believed I had fought the good fight and taken every measure possible to delay such an eventuality. And now hell was at the gates.”^[1]

Brian Lenihan died 7 months after that bailout agreement. There were many tragic consequences associated with his death. One was that he never got to see the Irish economy recover in the way that it has during the past decade. The crisis that Ireland faced between 2008-2010 was alarming, and momentous decisions were made by Brian Cowen’s government that included Brian Lenihan. Many, though not all, of the decisions it made were correct and led to the Irish economic recovery. At the time there were prominent, popular and repeated calls for Ireland to default on its debts or to let its banks collapse without any state support. Counterfactual history is impossible to paint but it is certainly the case that had Ireland defaulted on its debts and let its banks collapse the economic recovery it subsequently experienced would neither have been so prompt nor successful.

In fact, one of the criticisms that could legitimately be made of decisions made by the Irish government at that time was that it underestimated the resilience of the Irish economy and the demand that would subsequently exist for property constructed during the Celtic Tiger years. One of the main political questions in the immediate aftermath of the establishment of NAMA was what would be done with the ghost estates and excessive number of housing units that had been built during the boom. Today’s housing crisis reveals that a successful Irish economy needs a constant and continuous stream of housing units, irrespective of temporary economic dips.

The challenges that faced Brian Lenihan were momentous. They were challenges that most people honestly believed would occur only once in a century. Unfortunately, in the 11 years since his death Ireland and the world faces even greater challenges that are not merely economic, but existential and threatening. Consequently, it is as much a challenge as an honour to give this year’s Brian Lenihan Memorial lecture on the topic of “Ireland’s Role in an Endangered Europe”. Although each generation considers its challenges immense, the events of 2022, dominated by Russia’s invasions of Ukraine and the consequent energy crisis that has arisen throughout Europe, reveal that the general peace that permeated Europe since the end of the second world war has come to a shuddering halt. Europe is again endangered. This paper attempts to identify the immediate challenges facing Ireland, how they should be confronted and what should be Ireland’s role in this different and endangered Europe.

---

[1] Interview with Brian Lenihan in “Bailout Boys Go to Dublin”, BBC Radio 4, 24 April 2011.

The Defence Challenge

When Ireland joined the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973 the Iron Curtain divided millions of Eastern Europeans from their Western European counterparts. That curtain cruelly confined the people of East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, Albania and Bulgaria from the rest of Europe. This confinement, combined with the submergence within the Soviet Union of the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the immediate aftermath of the second world war, made the political division of Europe look irreversible. There are many and varied reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union and its oppressive dominance over neighbouring independent countries but one was unquestionably the establishment of the EEC and its subsequent transformation of the politics of Europe. 

At the time of Ireland’s joinder of the EEC in 1973 most of Eastern Europe was militarily part of the Warsaw Pact, whilst the western part was largely under the military control of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).^[1] Military tension in 1970’s Europe centred on the borders between Warsaw Pact and NATO countries. In the immediate aftermath of the collapse of communism and the Soviet Union, Iron Curtain countries rapidly moved to extricate themselves from the overbearing and dominant shadow of the Soviet sphere of influence. Nationalist governments in former soviet entities or Warsaw Pact countries decided that the best form of protection from centuries of overbearing Russian influence required a rapid joinder of NATO. East Germany, as a part of unified Germany, joined NATO in 1990 and 9 years later it was joined by Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. By 2009 Albania, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, all similarly decided that their safest defence option was to join NATO. 

Today the military map of Europe has changed unrecognisably since the 1970s. All of EU with the exception of Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and Austria will soon be part of NATO^[2]. The military influence of the Soviet Union has collapsed and its successor in title, the army of the Russian Federation, does not equal the relative military strength of the former Soviet Union. However, it is not when countries are at their strongest that they are most threatening. Recent history teaches us that a country’s vulnerability rather than its military strength is what makes it dangerous.^[3] On this analysis it is probably the insecurities of the Russian Federation and its leadership, rather than any inherent and consistent strength, that has propelled its act of aggression against Ukraine. 

The war in Ukraine is a product of that insecurity and is an aggressive and reactionary response by Russia to the understandable desire of Ukraine to protect itself from an unpredictable and insecure Russia. The war, however, should not cause Europeans into believing that there is a likelihood of Russia invading or openly launching military acts of aggression against NATO countries. Nonetheless, countries outside of NATO, particularly those within the Russian sphere of influence such as Sweden and Finland, have legitimate reasons to fear for their protection. It is in this context that the question of Ireland’s military neutrality has been recently discussed. 

Although the question of Ireland’s neutrality was raised by senior Irish politicians and commentators in the aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine, there is no actual or active political consideration being given to Ireland changing its policy of military neutrality. Any debate about Ireland’s military neutrality in light of the increasing enlargement of NATO in Europe needs to take into account two factors. First, Ireland’s military neutrality has historically served the interests of the country and its people well as a political policy.^[4] Second, the joinder of NATO by former Warsaw Pact countries or those countries in the immediate vicinity of Russia was a perfectly understandable and necessary response by those countries to the threats and occupations by Russia under the Tzars, Soviet communists or plutocrats who imposed their political control on the Russian people during the past 300 years. 

Notwithstanding the apparent isolation of Ireland, soon to be one of only 4 EU countries outside of NATO, there is no strong public desire in Ireland to join NATO notwithstanding any threat that may arise from that isolation. Part of the reason why Irish people would not wish to abandon their country’s neutrality is because Article 29.2 of Bunreacht na hÉireann affirms Ireland’s adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination. Bunreacht na hÉireann also acknowledges that Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States and, consequently, acknowledges the right of all States to defend themselves from acts of aggression. 

It is also worth emphasising that Ireland has never been and never will be a military power. The Irish Defence Forces have a long and distinguished international record in the area of peacekeeping and support for humanitarian intervention. However, in the absence of any immediate and pressing threat, Irish people do not want to see a vast increase in the amount of their limited resources being devoted to expenditure on offensive military weapons. That is not to say that there is no desire to see greater spending on Ireland’s Defence Forces that have been seriously underfunded during the past decade, but this should not be misinterpreted as a desire for Ireland to become a serious military power. This issue is of real societal importance as any country seeking to secure membership of NATO would be required to spend 2% of its GDP on defence.^[5]

The answer to the legitimate question of what Ireland’s response to an invasion by a threatening military power would be is that Ireland would, in all likelihood, be required to defend itself on its own with its current defence forces. To some, that may appear to be an inadequate response to a serious risk; but it is a risk that most Irish people are prepared to carry, mainly because they view as improbable the likelihood of such an event. Notwithstanding the limited military resources at its disposal, history reveals that Ireland and other independent countries are difficult to suppress and control without widespread domestic support. 

Ireland’s role in this endangered Europe should centre on the fact that it is a respected European country that has not been, never will be and does not want to be a global military power. It also has the advantage of being a European country that comes with no legacy of empire. That is a considerable advantage in a world where there is growing recognition that the empires of the 18^th, 19^th and 20^th centuries caused havoc and destruction throughout many parts of the world and should bear some responsibility for the many weaknesses evident in independent, post-colonial states. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia was dictated as much by past interactions between those two countries as it was by their recent political disputes. Ireland has been remarkably successful as an example of a post-colonial independent state and how it can establish a strong economy and exert political influence without the necessity of military power. It is in this context that Ireland’s neutrality can be used as an advantage in its relations with other countries. As a country that is constitutionally devoted to peace and friendly cooperation amongst nations, and which adheres to the principles of the pacific settlement of international disputes, Ireland should play a central role in the political defence of the autonomy of independent countries. In its response to the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation, Ireland has emphasised these principles by forcefully condemning and using its political, non-military, influence to oppose and condemn that invasion. 

---

^[1] The European Members of NATO in 1973 were Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Turkey, United Kingdom and West Germany. 

^[2] On 18 May 2022 Finland and Sweden formally applied to join NATO.

^[3] In Danger Zone, The Coming Conflict with China, Hal Brands and Michael Beckley, W. W. Norton & Company (2022) the authors contend that the most treacherous stage in the life cycle of a rising power is at the point where it is strong enough to disrupt aggressively the existing order but is losing confidence that time is on its side.

^[4] Under the Free State Constitution Article 49 provided that the Irish Free State shall not be committed to active participation in any war without the assent of the Oireachtas. Subsequently, under the Statute of Westminster in 1931 the United Kingdom renounced the right to legislate for the Irish Free State. This policy of military neutrality continued during the Second World War although, in practice, the Irish government did provide support and preferential treatment to the allies.

^[5] At present, Ireland spends approximately 0.3% of GDP on defence and the Irish Defence Forces have a budget of €1.1 billion.

The Energy Challenge

The biggest threat Ireland faces as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is the consequent shortage of gas that has arisen and the accompanying rise in the cost of energy. Ireland is in a particularly precarious position because of its dependence upon the importation of gas via the United Kingdom (UK), the current limited availability of renewable energy, the declining amount of gas being extracted from the Corrib gas field and the absence of any Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) storage facilities in Ireland. More than 70% of Ireland’s energy is imported. All its oil is imported and three quarters of the natural gas used comes from the United Kingdom which, in turn, sources most of it from the North Sea and Norway. Inevitably, the current closure of the Russian gas pipeline as a result of Gazprom, the Russian energy supplier, stopping gas flow via the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, is transforming energy supply in Europe and will place great demand on Norwegian and British Gas.[1]

Two issues now face Ireland. First, the prospect of not having enough energy resources to meet our domestic and business demands. That is a long term issue that will not be resolved until Ireland establishes a renewable energy sector that will meet all of its domestic energy needs. That will not be achieved for at least another 30 years. Second, the extraordinary surge in the price of electricity, heating and motor fuel which has arisen recently as a result of the diminishing supplies. That is a short term issue that requires an immediate response from the Irish government in its forthcoming budget.

Although the growth of renewables as a source of Ireland’s energy is increasing, the necessary transition to a carbon neutral economy cannot occur in the medium term without reliable access to the natural gas needed to fuel our ongoing energy requirements. Ireland does not have such access. This energy issue requires a mature and coherent political response in Ireland; but that response will be difficult unless Ireland’s political system faces up to the fact that, to date, some of its energy policies have been dictated by political convenience and a failure to face the reality of what is required as it transitions to a net zero economy. For instance, Ireland has banned exploration for gas because of its legitimate and well-intentioned concern about the devastating impact fossil fuels are having upon the environment. However, it continues to import gas and other fossil fuels from other countries yet is happy to present itself in the virtuous position of being a country that does not explore for gas. That may have been a virtue Ireland’s political system could enjoy prior to the cessation of Russian gas exports into Europe, but it is no longer sustainable until it has full renewable capacity. Consequently, it would be environmentally and politically more sensible and honest for Ireland during its transition to net zero to extract gas that exists off its west coast rather than importing it from foreign countries.

Ireland’s legislative commitment to be carbon neutral by 2050 is a commendable and achievable goal[2]. However, it cannot ignore that this goal can only be achieved if, in the interim, it avails of transition fuels such as gas whilst expanding the necessary infrastructure for renewable energy. This may be politically uncomfortable but failure to appreciate it will mean that the transition to a carbon neutral economy will not occur and will not secure public support. Therefore, Ireland needs to review its prohibition on gas exploration off its west coast. It also needs to extend any licences for gas exploration that exist at present. The Corrib gas field was launched in 2016 and will cease probably by the end of this decade but there is a strong likelihood of other gas fields in its vicinity. These can only be availed of if government permits or extends exploration licences. The failure to permit or extend licences for gas exploration, a relatively clean and permitted transition fuel, off our west coast whilst at the same time importing gas (or indeed electricity generated through nuclear energy) from other jurisdictions is a type of political hypocrisy that elevates political virtue above political reality.

The threat caused by rising prices and potential energy blackouts is more immediate. It needs to be recognised that this is an issue that could generate a very negative public response and indeed, as has been suggested by the European Commissioner for Climate Action Frans Timmermans, a threat of unrest in Europe this winter if energy costs and supply become unattainable.[3] Timmermans stated:

“If our society descends into very, very strong conflict and strife because there is no energy, we’re certainly not going to make our climate goals. We’re certainly not going to get where we need to get if the lack of energy leads to strong disruption in our societies, and we need to make sure people are not in the cold in the coming winter. We need to make sure we keep our industry, as much as possible, functioning because the one thing that could help Putin is divisions in our society.”

This energy crisis also poses a serious threat to Ireland’s economy, as was apparent in August 2022 when an amber alert was issued on the electricity market for 2 days in a row^[3]. The single electricity market operator stated that the reason for the amber alert was because of “a generation shortfall in Ireland”. The success and reputation of the Irish economy as an open vibrant economy that attracts inward investment will be severely damaged if Ireland cannot commit to providing energy supply. It is a cornerstone of Ireland’s economic policy that corporations are welcome here and that the necessary supply of an educated workforce and reliable energy will be available. This will be completely undermined if there are power outages or, as was suggested by the Commission for Regulation of Utilities (CRU) on 8 August 2022, there is the imposition of “peak tariffs” on large industrial users of electricity to pressure companies to reduce usage when supply is tight. Obviously, all domestic supply must be prioritised but it will be extraordinarily damaging to Ireland’s successful economic model, and the vast tax receipts it gets from corporation tax, if it is no longer able to provide continuous and affordable energy to corporate customers.

The success of the Irish economic model in attracting foreign investment has been replicated in other countries that have joined the EU. Ireland has been an economic role model for those countries and should continue to be an example of how a country with limited natural resources can build a strong knowledge based economy. The risk that Ireland faces, however, is that the Irish economic model will be damaged if businesses can no longer be assured that they will have their energy needs met. Any such failure would inflict tremendous damage on Ireland’s economic reputation and would, according to former government Minister Pat Rabbitte, constitute a “dereliction of duty”.  In recent commentary that echoed the challenges faced by Brian Lenihan during the financial crisis he stated:

“The parties in power, Fianna Fáil and the Greens, at the time of the financial crash were almost destroyed at the time of the subsequent election. The parties that went in to pick up the pieces, Fine Gael and Labour, were similarly devastated. Those responsible for the dereliction of duty at the Central Bank and Financial Regulator escaped almost scot free. One wonders in the case of energy whether the Commission for Regulation of Utilities was similarly asleep at the wheel. At a minimum the Commission should be required by the relevant Dáil Committee to explain what steps (if any) it had recommended to government to provide against energy supply now being in such a precarious position.”^[5]

Irish political debate frequently ignores the realities of Ireland’s vulnerability when it comes to the provision of energy. It also fails to expedite developments that are central to the necessary expansion of our renewable energy sector. Repeatedly, the Irish political system refers to the great opportunities that exist for wind energy offshore on the west coast but notwithstanding these utterances development has been far too slow.

It can also not be ignored that as Ireland approaches this precarious winter it is enormously dependent upon receiving gas via the UK. When the UK was a member of the EU it was obliged to give Ireland proportionate access to gas supplies but that no longer applies since Brexit. Although Prime Minister Truss is only in office 9 days, if she intends to provoke a further dispute with the EU on the Irish protocol attached to the Withdrawal Agreement, the fanaticism associated with Brexit in certain sections of her party may result, at some stage, in the new Prime Minister being urged to use gas supply to Ireland as a negotiating mechanism in its ongoing dispute with the EU. It is this deteriorating political relationship between Ireland and the United Kingdom that is the third significant challenge that faces Ireland.

---

[1] At the end of August 2022 the Russian Energy supplier, Gazprom, completely halted the flow of gas through Nord Stream 1, a decision probably prompted by the decision of G7 countries to impose a price cap on Russian oil and gas.

[2] The Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021 provides for a national climate objective, which commits to pursue and achieve no later than 2050, the transition to a climate resilient, biodiversity-rich, environmentally-sustainable and climate-neutral economy.

[3] Risk of Conflict and Strife in Europe over energy crisis, EU Deputy warns. The Guardian 8 July 2022.

[4] Eirgrid, the company that develops and operates Ireland’s national electricity grid, issued an amber system alert to the electricity market on 9 and 10 August 2022 due to low wind, limited electricity imports and forced outages at a number of generators.

[5] Questions for the Utilities Commission as energy crisis was waiting to happen. Pat Rabbitte. Sunday Business Post, 18 June 2022.

The UK Challenge

Ireland will always be a friend of the UK but that friendship has experienced significant problems since Brexit. It is not that long ago that Ireland had excellent political relationships with the UK. The relationships between John Major and Albert Reynolds or Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern were partnerships that could not have been better. Each politician understood the political issues intimately; appreciated the vulnerabilities and sensitivities of all sides; compromised to facilitate others, and always kept at the forefront of their minds the primary political objective of their relationships. That inter-government relationship reached its zenith with the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. It continued very strongly until the financial crash and the immediate recovery notwithstanding changes of governments on both sides of the Irish sea. Unfortunately, in the years after the financial crash focus was taken off that relationship and the absence of any consideration for the consequences of Brexit on Ireland during the referendum debate was emblematic of that lack of attention. Although there were many occasions during the years of violence in Northern Ireland when Anglo Irish relations were damaged, after each occasion efforts were quickly made to remediate that damage. In contrast, Brexit has had a devastating impact on Anglo Irish political relations since 2016 and, unfortunately, the corresponding efforts to rectify the relationship have been lost in the UK’s ongoing politics of Brexit. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the exemplary efforts of Irish and British diplomats to ameliorate this damage, the politics of Brexit mean that improving Anglo Irish relations has not been a political objective of recent British governments.

The greatest challenge facing Ireland in its current relationship with the UK is trying to convince the UK government of the damage that it is causing to Northern Ireland and east/west relations as a result of its inconsistencies and ultimatums on the Irish protocol. Unfortunately, the government of Prime Minister Boris Johnson was prepared to sacrifice any relationship or political achievement in order to get its own way on Brexit. If new Prime Minister Liz Truss proceeds with the same policy as her predecessor or indeed with an even harder Brexitology, then it seems certain that the relationship between Ireland the UK will not improve until there is a British government that acknowledges and accepts the Withdrawal Agreement which it executed when it left the EU.

As a friend, Ireland probably needs to be more forthright with the UK about the direction it has taken in recent years even though there has been an understandable desire on the part of Irish governments and politicians to avoid involvement in the internal UK politics of Brexit. However, the impact of Brexit on Northern Ireland politics and the Good Friday Agreement can no longer be understated or downplayed. Those who now condemn the Northern Ireland Protocol were silent during the Referendum as to the potential negative consequences of Brexit on the North/South relationships and economies. Obviously, no political interest in Ireland wants to see trade barriers between East/West, particularly those involving trade within the UK between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. However, that is a consequence of Brexit and the decisions made by the UK government and parliament to leave the single market and customs union. The only coherent way for the Northern Ireland Protocol issue to be resolved is for the UK to re-join the single market and customs union. Not only would this be beneficial for Northern Ireland, but it would also recognise the perhaps unpalatable fact that the UK has suffered economically as a result of its departure from the single market and customs union.

The Office of Budget Responsibility in the UK in May 2022 unambiguously informed the UK government of the current and future economic consequences of Brexit.^[1]  It stated that the new trading relationship between the UK and EU that came into effect on 1 January 2021 will reduce long-run productivity by 4% relative to remaining in the EU. It also recorded that both exports and imports will be around 15% lower in the long run than if the UK had remained in the EU. Finally, it concluded that the new trade deals with non-EU countries will not have a material impact, and any effect will be gradual because the deals concluded to date either replicate or roll over deals that the UK already benefited from as an EU member state.

In that interim period, however, there is the danger that Anglo Irish relationships could regress even more as the UK isolates itself further within Europe. In doing so, however, the UK is not just damaging its own relationship with Ireland and the EU but undermining the one relationship to which it is unquestionably committed and which it describes as its special relationship, namely that with the United States of America (US). The cooling in the relationship between the current US administration and recent UK governments is a real challenge for Ireland since Ireland benefits when there is strong agreement between the UK and US on issues affecting the island of Ireland. This challenge provides Ireland with an opportunity, and indeed a responsibility, to augment its role as a bridge between the US and Europe.

---

[1] Brexit analysis – Office for Budget Responsibility (obr.uk)

The US Challenge

The dominance of the EU on the European continent means that the US government and US corporations must focus on the EU when they wish to engage with Europe. The UK, when a member of the EU, was the main point of contact. That access to the EU and its single market, through the UK, has evaporated since Brexit. As the only English-speaking country left within the EU, Ireland has an invaluable opportunity to increase its role in facilitating EU/US cooperation and continuing to attract inward US investment. Increasingly, the world is becoming compartmentalised into large economic blocks.[1] The departure of the UK from the EU therefore provides extraordinary opportunities for Ireland to enhance its role as a country that attracts US multinational companies seeking access to the EU’s single market. As an English speaking, common law jurisdiction with an independent judiciary and a highly educated workforce, Ireland’s opportunities have been enhanced by Brexit and these can be advanced further provided Ireland does not reverse its open economy approach.

At present, the Irish economy benefits enormously from corporation tax from large multinational technology and pharmaceutical companies, most of them based in the US.[2] The Department of Finance explained in August 2022 that Ireland’s strong exchequer revenue performance was driven by “significant increases in profitability in the multinational sector.” In fact, the rise in corporation tax has steadily increased in Ireland over the past 10 years with receipts constituting €4 billion in 2012 and rising to €15.3 billion in 2021. Those receipts could top €20 billion this year. However, 50% of the €15.3 billion in 2021 came from just 10 companies, including Apple, Google, Intel, Meta, Amazon and Pfizer. Any economic downturn in the EU or the US may impact upon these tax receipts but the multinationals in the Irish economy have, to date, been very resilient and there is no indication, as of yet, that their business models are in decline or they are considering leaving Ireland. If either of those events occur there will be a significant reduction in corporation tax receipts. It is seldom stated in Irish politics that Ireland’s public services are very dependent upon the presence, success and profitability of a small number of US multinationals. Although the retention and growth of multinationals is at present a prime political objective for Ireland, the real threat to the continued presence of the multinational sector in Ireland derives from, first, the potential change in direction of the country’s economic strategy that seeks to make Ireland attractive for inward investment and, second, the housing crisis that limits the availability of accommodation for all Irish workers.

Since Sean Lemass made the transformative decision to open up the Irish economy to foreign investment there has been continuous political support for this approach from successive Irish governments. The other government decision that transformed the Irish economy was Ireland’s entry into the EU’s single market. Consistently since then Ireland has supported an economic policy that is pro-European and pro foreign direct investment. Irish governments, operating from the centre ground, have recognised the advantages of these policies notwithstanding the presence of strong eurosceptic and anti-multinational voices in Ireland that have sought to blame these policies for social or political failings. These voices have not yet succeeded because, to date, Irish people have not voted to be governed from the extremes by those who seek to polarise Irish politics.

A significant threat facing Ireland at present is the prospect that its politics could become polarised along exceptionally divided lines as we have seen recently in the UK and the US, or consistently in Northern Ireland. Since our membership of the EU in 1973 Ireland has been governed from the centre. It has been an open market economy that has attracted multinationals and foreign workers who have been able to prosper as a result of economic policies that have been put in place by successive Irish governments. If there is a widely held belief that a future Irish government may change approach and direction to make foreign direct investment less attractive in Ireland, this may have a catastrophic effect on the multinational sector and, in particular, on the 275,000 people directly employed by multinationals in Ireland. Such investment is very dependent on and affected by government sentiment and the prospect of an anti-business government in Ireland is a real threat to the continued economic success of the country. If a political message emanates from Ireland that the multinational sector is no longer welcome or will be subjected to unpredictable tax rises, Ireland will become less attractive for them and its corporation tax take will fall, thereby preventing it from funding the public services that are at present provided.

A significant proportion of multinationals in Ireland emanate from the US and the continuation and enhancement of the political relationship between Ireland and the US is central to the economic strength and welfare of the country. In a world of uncertainty, Ireland’s security can be enhanced and protected by remaining an integral part of the EU but also by having a very close economic relationship with the US. Ireland should be the bridgehead between the US and the EU. The strengthening of the EU/US relationship is all the more important considering the rising influence in power of China and other economic centres of influence. It is apparent that, from the US’s point of view, an economic bridge between the US and a EU country is far preferable to such a bridge between the US and the UK, a country outside the European Union and without access to its single market.

The other threat to this economic model, the housing crisis, plays into the hands of those who wish to polarise politics. One of the economic consequences of a failure to resolve the chronic housing shortage is that Ireland will not be as attractive a location for multinationals if their workforces are incapable of securing affordable accommodation in Ireland. The current problems in the Irish housing sector go beyond the cost of land and the price of construction. There are not enough builders and tradesmen to provide the work necessary to construct the houses that are required. It is at times like this that Ireland requires the bold thinking and innovative planning that it saw from previous generations. It has now become accepted as a political fact that the State should not itself get involved in directly contracting builders and tradespeople to construct housing. Instead, it prefers to buy directly from developers at prices set by the market. That is a mindset that needs to be revisited and changed. Ireland should get back involved in directly contracting builders from Ireland or abroad, after competitive tenders, to build houses, a practice that would increase capacity and reduce cost.[3]

If Ireland wishes to avoid a departure from the successful economic pathway down which it has travelled during the past 50 years, it needs to ensure that it continues to be governed from the centre by governments that not only support but actively encourage inward investment. Otherwise, the country’s capacity to generate continued economic growth will become threatened and the politics of rejection and extremism will grow.

---

[1] NAFTA; European Union, African Continental Free Trade Area, Mercosur, South Asian Free Trade Area.

[2] In August 2022 there was a surplus in the Irish economy of €5 billion. This performance arose notwithstanding a surge in inflation but was primarily driven by record corporation tax receipts which generated €9 billion for the 7 month period up to the end of July 2022. This was more than €3 billion ahead of the same period in 2021.

[3] In 2021 the average cost for a home procured by the state was €255,221 for a three bedroom house.

Ireland’s Role

Ireland’s history was viewed as a terrible burden. It should now be seen as its greatest opportunity. A country that fought for generations for independence from a neighbouring colonial power has now established itself as an important independent state on the world stage, whilst also establishing a relationship of friendship and equality with that former colonial power. As global conflicts grow, the example of reconciliation evident in Ireland should be a shining example to all troubled spots. Ireland’s reconciliation on the island and with its neighbouring island is not complete and the ongoing sectarianism within Northern Ireland is a cancer that needs to be excised by those exerting political, social and religious responsibility. But the transformation of relationships within and between the two islands during the past century is remarkable and inspiring notwithstanding the ongoing saga that is politics in Northern Ireland.

The late Queen Elizabeth’s state visit to Ireland in 2011 and, in particular, her bow to Ireland’s Republican dead at the Garden of Remembrance greatly facilitated that reconciliation. Moreover, the consistent and deliberate emphasis placed by the late Queen on seeking to reconcile legitimate grievances and understand political differences are examples of what is needed in Anglo Irish relations, rather than the megaphone diplomacy resorted to by some within the Conservative Party in their zeal to prolong the politics of Brexit. Fortunately, the new monarch, King Charles III, has displayed in his tenure as Prince of Wales a desire and ambition to ameliorate politics in Ireland and to build friendship between both jurisdictions. His frequent and low-key visits to Ireland and his understanding of the sensitivities associated with Irish politics have greatly facilitated reconciliation. The actions of the late monarch and her successor reveal that the British government has a lot to learn from the patient and considered approach of the British Royal family in its relations with Ireland.

Ireland’s role should be to show an endangered Europe that ancient conflicts and apparently intractable political problems can be resolved through negotiation and reconciliation, provided there is equality and respect. Former imperial powers now occupy a different world where tolerance for the consequences of empire and colonialism is fading. The transformation of Ireland’s relationship with the UK illustrates how a toxic imperial relationship can transition into a very close friendship of equals. This was achieved because of the maturity of certain political participants and it will withstand the immaturity and insecurity of recent politics that fears the consequences of such transitions.

That transformation, however, took time and courage. It was only possible after reconciliation and agreement within each country as to how political objectives should be pursued. It required brave politicians to make people understand the futility of violence where there is no democratic support. It required a rejection of political extremism. Ireland has succeeded as a country and in its relationships with others because it is respectful of other peoples and countries. That is an important role.

Speaking with Claire Byrne along with Jason Poole, brother of murdered Jennifer, who was fatally stabbed by her partner published a party policy on tackling violence against women.

I spoke on the Government Response to the situation in Ukraine: I suspect the real fear that Vladimir Putin has, is not the arrival of missiles in neighbouring countries, but the arrival of democracy into those countries, particularly democracy as epitomised by the European Union. I wish democracy to the Russian people.

Motion One of the most important political characteristics is self-awareness, which is knowing one’s limitations and one’s capabilities. It is important that in this House we assess ourselves when it comes to deciding how we respond to the threat posed by Vladimir Putin’s unlawful and brutal invasion of Ukraine. We need to know what our capacities are and what our limitations are.

Why would a proud, independent country like Ireland want to associate itself diplomatically with Putin’s despotic regime?
Irish people are revolted by his actions in Ukraine.