Tag Archives: Mooney on Tuesday


Derek Mooney (above) and his Summer 2018 political reading list (top)

If you are thinking of taking a few political books away with you as you wind down in August, this list may be of help.

As with last year’s list, the books here appear in no particular order. These are the books that caught my attention over the past few months, including some from the second half of 2017 and one that I wanted to like, but couldn’t.

As this list broadly reflects my personal biases, feel free to offer your own suggestions in the comments section below. Enjoy the Summer and see you back here towards the end of August.

Beyond The Border, The Good Friday Agreement And Irish Unity After Brexit by Richard Humphreys

A timely read, this book by High Court judge and former Irish Labour Party Sp/Ad, Richard Humphreys examines how the structures and principles that underpin the 1998 Good Friday Agreement could work in a post Brexit, United Ireland.

As Humphreys states clearly in the preface, the book is not intended as a political work, but rather as a personal, but academic, explanation of the Agreement and its implications. This he does expertly, with minimal jargon or rhetoric, across seven distinct sections that go from understanding the evolution and architecture of the agreement to getting beyond just working the institutions and arriving at removing the obstacles to unification. Not a light read, it is still a very worthwhile one.

Witness to War Crimes: The Memoirs of an Irish Peacekeeper in Bosnia by Col Colm Doyle

This is no ordinary military memoir, not least because Col Doyle is no ordinary Irish soldier. As defence analyst and fellow army officer, Declan Power, said in his Irish Independent profile of Doyle, “[he] …has gone head to head with presidents, warlords and war criminals in the pursuit of peace.”

Doyle’s memoir is a first-hand chronicle of Yugoslavia’s break-up and descent into mayhem and barbarity. He recounts his role in brokering ceasefires, both local and across the conflict, and in providing much of the expert testimony that helped convict key Bosnian-Serb leaders at the Hague war crimes tribunal.

Doyle’s account shows how little it takes to slip from peace to war, even in the heart of Europe, and how well trained and skilled Irish troops on UN mandated peace support operations can – and do – make a difference.

War on Peace: The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence by Ronan Farrow

Published months before President Trump’s eh… shall we say colourful… NATO and Helsinki summit performances, Ronan Farrow’s book laments what he sees as the two-decade long decline in America’s civilian diplomacy and cautions against America’s increasing reliance on military and intelligence solutions.

Though now a journalist and writer, over a decade ago Farrow was a lowly State Department official, and so offers more of an “insider” perspective, especially given his early position as an aide to Richard Holbrooke the chief negotiator of the Dayton Peace Accords, which ended the civil war in Bosnia.

While Farrow’s writing style may be light, his treatment of the topic is anything but. He does not skimp on detail or research, so put aside time to read his thoughtful and considered account.

Yes We (Still) Can: Politics in the Age of Obama, Twitter, and Trump by Dan Pfeiffer

If you like President Trump and the way he does business, then this definitely is not the book for you, try either Alan Dershowitz’s latest offering “The Case Against Impeaching Trump” or his 2017 book: “Trumped Up: How Criminalization of Political Differences Endangers Democracy” instead.

However, if you are not a fan and want a chatty, pacey, funny and ultimately optimistic view of how Trumpism can be defeated, then this book by a key Obama adviser and host of the political podcast: Pod Save America, is for you. Pfeiffer explores how America got to where it is today by looking back over the successes and failures of the Obama era. The result is both a highly entertaining read and a roadmap to defeating Trump in 2020.

Ctrl Alt Delete by Tom Baldwin

According to the blurb: “Ctrl Alt Delete is a brutally honest and sometimes funny account of how our democracy was crashed — and whether we can still re-boot it.”

It is one of several books looking at the fraught and difficult relationship between politics, the media, and the new information age, but has the benefit of being written by an experienced practitioner. Baldwin has, at various points in his career, been the UK Labour Party’s communications director and political editor of The Sunday Telegraph.

He is now the communications director of the People’s Vote campaign for a second vote on Brexit. The book is a well-written, sometimes funny, often angry examination of how the vicious battle for control of the news agenda has changed both politics and the media for the worse. Like some other books on this list, it culminates in a warning that democracy itself may be in peril.

On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century By Timothy Snyder

Continuing the slightly dystopian theme, this short book from 2017 by noted historian Tim Snyder opens with a telling quote from Polish philosopher, Leszek Kolokowski: “In politics, being deceived is no excuse”.

Snyder identifies 20 important and practical lessons from the Nazi and Soviet eras to show how people can be brought to conspire in their own deception, accepting political lies without critical examination when the lie feels right. A handy book to dip in and out of, it is perhaps one to keep to hand rather than reading from cover to cover.

Brexit and Ireland: The Dangers, the Opportunities, and the Inside Story of the Irish Response by Tony Connelly

Without a doubt the “go to” book on Brexit and its impact on Ireland. Well written, thoroughly researched, yet concise it offers a dispassionate analysis and real insight into what Britain’s Brexit folly means for Ireland’s economy and how it will affect British/Irish relations.

While the process has moved on, or should I say stumbled on, since it was first published late last year, Tony’s book is still a vital source and should be read alongside Tony’s excellent RTE Brexit Blog and Podcasts.

Two other Brexit related tomes to consider alongside Tony’s book are Ian Dunt’s 2018 update of his book: Brexit, What The Hell Happens Now? and Dr Denis McShane’s Brexit, No Exit: Why in the End Britain Won’t Leave Europe.

[There are several pro Brexit books from 2017 still knocking around, probably in some bargain buckets by now, including ones by Dan Hannon and Liam Halligan, but you won’t catch me plugging them here.]

Revolution Française Emmanuel Macron and the Quest to Reinvent a Nation by Sophie Pedder

Where several other books on this list have pessimistic undertones, this biography of Macron by The Economist’s Paris Bureau Chief borders on the optimistic, but only just.
The Macron emerging from Pedder’s profile is intelligent, astute, warm – though a bit geeky – and capable of self-criticism. Pedder writes from the vantage point of having interviewed Macron many times since 2012.

This was long before his meteoric rise to the presidency or even his emergence as a political figure of note. She charts the progress of a progressive reformer who broke the old French party system, not just by luck but by having the political foresight to see the opening gap and positioning himself and his En Marche movement to fill it.

Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: A Brief History of Capitalism by Yanis Varoufakis

This book comes with the unusual distinction of being reviewed by our very own Varoufakis, Finance Minister, Paschal Donohue. Though Donohue is dismissive of Varoufakis, describing him as hopelessly out of his depth as a finance minister and fleeing for the Greek islands when the going got tough, Paschal still liked the book, calling it “lucid but flawed”. It’s a fair critique as the book does precisely what it says in the title, namely explaining modern economics to a teenager.

Varoufakis is a skilled communicator and engaging writer. He succeeds in finding terminology and cultural references that allow economics be discussed in a way that almost everyone can understand. These range from Greek mythology to The Matrix via an explanation of money supply by looking at how Red Cross packages were used in German prisoner-of-war camps. A welcome read for anyone who had to repeat economics in college, including yours truly.

Things Can Only Get Worse?: Twenty confusing years in the life of a Labour supporter by John O’Farrell

This laugh-out-loud sequel to the equally hilarious “Things can only get better” is, according to the introduction, for those who “could use a good laugh after Brexit, Trump and finding they were governed by the DUP”. It’s a claim the book delivers on, in bucket loads.

Where O’Farrell’s 1998 memoir looked at eighteen miserable years of being a British Labour Party supporter under a Tory government, this one deals with the highs and lows of the two decades since Blair’s 1997 landslide.

He robustly defends both Blair and Brown’s record in office, while acknowledging their many failings, and likens the rise of Corbyn to discovering that “your student daughter had just married a very unsuitable older man”.

O’Farrell proves that you can write sincerely about politics and still be funny. It is a genuine belter and – who knows – possibly an inspiration for an Irish version?

The President is Missing by Bill Clinton with James Patterson

Ok. This one is a stretch. Looking at the list above I saw that I hadn’t included any decent fiction. So, I added this thriller co-authored by Clinton and Patterson and then realised that the list still doesn’t feature any.

As a Bill Clinton fan I was ready, willing and able to like this book. I looked forward to reading the RTÉ’s exclusive extract online, along with the two “look inside” preview chapters on Amazon.
Sadly, they all failed to impress.

It is not bad, it is just sluggish and heavy going. The book has been hyped as benefiting from President Clinton’s detail knowledge of the inside workings of the presidency, but it is this detail that slows it down.

The thoughts of wading through 500+ more pages of it defeated me, so use my defeat as a warning and avoid it too.

Derek Mooney is a communications and public affairs consultant. He previously served as a Ministerial Adviser to the Fianna Fáil-led government 2004 – 2010. His column, which appears here every Tuesday, will return at the end of August. Follow Derek on Twitter: @dsmooney

Last Year: Summer Political Reading List

Possible Presidential hopefuls, clockwise from left at top panel: Joan Freeman, Gavin Duffy and Noel Whelan; above: Derek Mooney

Though the 2018 Áras race has not officially started, it is already producing some political myths. Doubtless there will be many more before October, so no harm in putting an end to a few of the more tedious ones now.

Myth No 1. The main parties – or the Elites as the elite myth spreaders call them – want to deny us the right to vote.

This one is exposed by simple arithmetic. There are two routes to getting a nomination. The first is the Oireachtas one, where you need the backing of 20 members of the Dáil and/or Seanad. The second is the Council path, which means getting four city or county councils to propose you.

The Oireachtas route had been the preserve of the two big parties, but as their dominance started to wane in the early 90s, so too did their grip on the Presidential nomination process.

Actually, it slipped as early as 1945 when Patrick McCartan ran as an Independent, with the backing of 20 Oireachtas members getting 20% of the vote, but the two parties subsequently regained their grip on the process.

That grip slipped in 1990 with the joint Labour Party and the Workers’ Party nomination of Mary Robinson. This was repeated in 1997 when Labour, Democratic Left and the Greens got together to run Adi Roache.

But it was in 1997 on the Council route that the FF/FG presidential duopoly finished for good. That election saw the entry into the race of not one, but two independent candidates: Dana and Derek Nally, both of whom were nominated by the Councils. Fourteen years later, in 2011 the trend progressed with four independent candidates getting in to the race.

Oireachtas arithmetic shows that Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil & Labour have neither the numbers nor the power to stop at least one, if not two independents emerging from the Oireachtas route.

Even with Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour backing President Higgins and Sinn Féin running its own candidate, there are still up to 50 other Oireachtas members who have the scope to facilitate one, or even two more, candidates entering the race. That power lies with them, not with Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael

Meanwhile, the traditional path for independents to enter the race, the 31 Councils, could theoretically nominate up to seven more. Do not be surprised to see councillors from both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael finding ingenious ways to facilitate other candidates entering the race, while professing firm personal support for MDH.

Though Councils have always had the power to nominate, it wasn’t exercised before 1997. But now they have found that power, they are not going to deny it to themselves, even if that does mean having to duck and dive and put up with irate emails and texts from party HQ.

This brings us to Myth 2.

Myth 2. Only for Sinn Féin there would be no contest

While Sinn Féin has every right to nominate someone and to enjoy its time in the media spotlight while it goes about the process of picking that someone, it does not have the right to pretend that this is a privilege that it enjoys alone. There are 50 Oireachtas members and 31 councils who also have the power to nominate, and they will.

Mary Lou McDonald’s Twitter tirade that “Fine Gael Fianna Fáil & Labour don’t want to give people a say in Presidential election” has little to do with voter choice in the Aras 18 race and has all to do with the next election.

While it does contain dig at the President, hinting that he, as the preferred candidate of the three parties didn’t want to give the people a say, Sinn Féin’s Aras run is no more about winning the Áras than it is about winning Eurovision.

Sinn Féin’s focus is every bit as much on the next general as Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael’s. While the two big parties have decided that the best way to help their next general election prospects is by not contesting the presidential, Sinn Féin have concluded that theirs, is.

It’s a matter of relative positioning. As both are ahead of Sinn Fein in the polls, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael would have to win outright to justify entering the Aras race.

Sinn Féin merely has to get a few points above its latest opinion poll rating to vindicate its strategy.

So why is Sinn Féin bleating about FF, FG and Labour backing the candidate they are backing? Will we see Sinn Féin HQ follow through on the logic of Mary Lou’s position and allow, nay instruct, Sinn Féin councillors use their position as the third biggest party in local government to facilitate others to enter the race and compete with their nominee?

In the memorable words of James Gogarty at the Mahon Tribunal: “will we fuck” – and he didn’t mean it as an invite either.

Myth 3 – There is no way Michael D can lose

This is the most dangerous of the myths thus far, and it is the one that the electorate may ultimately debunk.

While Michael D is odds-on to win, an unpublished poll (from April) by Dr Kevin Cunningham showed Michael D Higgins getting up to 70%, Irish presidential campaigns are curious things.

Early front runners end up trailing the field. Senator David Norris, who finished up with 6.2%, started out at 21% in the first national opinion poll (Red C).

Though I expect President Higgins to win, most likely on the first count, I also expect much of the campaign coverage will be about his gradual slide in the polls from the mid to upper 60s at the start, to the low 50s by polling day. Enough to win easily, but not enough not to suffer some damage.

The history of recent Irish Presidential elections is that your campaign matters. While MDH is the most tested of all the likely runners, having been through countless elections, he did still manage to slip through the middle of the 2011 Aras race without much negative focus landing on him.

That won’t be the case now. Other candidates are not going to see themselves as running against each other, they will see themselves as each running against the incumbent. Michael D’s high poll ratings make him the one to beat and thus the one to attack.

We see it already. Mary Lou McDonald’s oblique attempt to taint MDH as the elitist candidate, the one who wanted the big parties to give him a clear run, was a smart early move, made even smarter by doing it while she does not have a named candidate to suffer the backlash of attacking a popular President.

But there is another factor, the Enoch Powell one. Powell famously observed that All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure. It is the caveat here that matters.

The risk for the popular and well politician lies in staying on too long. In running in one election too many and not seeing the right time to exit the stage.

Michael D has been through many rough and tough campaigns before. The voters know him – but that lengthy familiarity may be his vulnerability.

Asking people to put you back in office for seven more years is a big ask, even if that does come with the bonus of keeping Bród and Síoda in the public eye.

People have known Michael D as President and as a major political figure for a long time. There is a risk that when confronted with a panel of alternatives, some voters who still like him will nonetheless feel that a new person may shake things up, as he once did, so it is time for him to go.

The race is his to lose. Dev came within 10700 votes of doing precisely that in 1966. Ultimately, it depends on who the independent Oireachtas members and the city and county councillors back.

Áras 18 will be interesting enough in itself, we won’t need the myths to make it so.

Derek Mooney is a communications and public affairs consultant. He previously served as a Ministerial Adviser to the Fianna Fáil-led government 2004 – 2010. His column appears here every Tuesday Follow Derek on Twitter: @dsmooney

Montage: Irish AmericaRollingnews

From top: Taoiseach Leo Varadkar (right) launching Ireland’s Security Council campaign at UN headquarters in New York with from left: Bono, Tánaiste Simon Coveney and former President of Ireland Mary Robinson; Derek Mooney

Last week the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister of State for Defence and the Minister of State for the Diaspora went on manoeuvres in New York.

While their jaunt was ostensibly to “launch” Ireland’s bid for a seat on the UN Security Council, their real purpose was more domestic.

It was an impressive display.

In addition to these four government members, curiously all of them from Fine Gael, were a former Irish President, the Defence Forces’ Chief of Staff, Bono, U2, a contingent of uniformed Defence Force members and an even bigger contingent of Irish political correspondents.

If UN Security Council (UNSC) seats are allocated on the basis of display, then Ireland should be a shoo-in.

But, UNSC seats are not won by those who just put on the best display.

They are won by years of horse trading and deal making.

Ireland’s fortunes will owe more to who we have backed in past rounds than it will on enabling UN Ambassadors to see U2 live or even getting to meet Paul Kehoe or Ciaran Cannon and shake their hands.

Last week’s New York escapade was not for the benefit of the UN Ambassadors, it was for ours. It was, as I have discussed here previously, an example of the glitzy stage production that the Varadkar Production Co., T/A Fine Gael and the Irish Government Inc., likes to mount.

The real audience was not in New York, it was here. The campaign launched was not Ireland’s bid for the Security Council, it was Fine Gael’s bid to increase its Dáil representation.

Don’t kid yourself, whether the general election is held later this year, in 2019, 2020 or even 2021 (the latest possible date is April 9th 2021), the campaign has already started.

So, how galling must it have been for the media pack, who obligingly helped bring the message to the good folks back home, to later hear that the Taoiseach was speaking so disobligingly about them behind their backs, channelling his inner Trump.

But the media will get over their indignation. They know that revenge is a dish best served cold and can pack their displeasure away on ice, to be served another day.

Meanwhile, Ireland is right to seek a seat on the Security Council for the two-year session commencing on Jan 1st 2021.

We are right to fight hard to win that place but, though you wouldn’t know it from last week’s hoopla, the decision to seek a UNSC seat was not made last week, or even last year it was made a decade or more ago.

The former secretary-general at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Irish ambassador to the United Nations, Noel Dorr, said so much during an interview on the RTÉ Six-One news. He thought the decision might date back to 2005 – two years before Varadkar even became a TD.

Ireland has a strong record in winning UNSC seats. We have sought and won a place on the Security Council approximately once every 20 years, since we joined the UN in 1955.

Our first UNSC stint was for one year, in 1962. We were back on it again, 20 years later for the 1981-1982 two-year term and again in 2001 – 2002. The Irish pattern is clear: one two-year UNSC term every two decades.

If successful this time, we would be on the UNSC in 2021-2022.

But that “if” is important. This is not the Late, Late Show, there isn’t one for everyone in the audience. More than 60 UN member states have never served on the Security Council.

The destination of the five UNSC seats for the 2021-2022 session, will be decided when the UN General assembly votes next June. They will be filled as follows:

• One for Africa

• One for the Asia-Pacific Group

• One for Latin America and the Caribbean

• Two for the Western European and Others Group

The UNSC’s rotation rules determine that the non-permanent seats rotate among the various regional blocs into which UN member states are divided for voting and representation purposes.

Thus, Ireland is one of three countries competing for the two Western Europe and Others seats: the other two are Canada and Norway.

All three bidders are widely viewed as model UN members. Even so, Ireland is a strong contender. Just as we were in 2000 and 1980,

Back in 2000, we were against Norway and Italy. We emerged the clear winner, getting 130 votes. But Norway did well too, getting 114 votes compared to Italy’s 94.

In the earlier 1980 rotation the voting was tighter with Ireland coming second (with 107 votes) just behind Spain on 109 votes.

The current view of the UN watchers is that Ireland should make it this time.

Norway’s election is seen as a fait accompli not least because it “has a huge aid budget – probably the biggest in the world,” according to one official. So, the fight will be between Ireland and Canada – with Ireland having an advantage.

Many in the Canadian media view their own bid as the weakest of the three. They attribute this to their being the last candidate country out of the traps with Canada not commencing a bid process until after Trudeau became Premier in 2015.

So how do we extend our advantage?

Though some of the Merrion Street FG spin masters may believe that there is no better way of improving Ireland’s UNSC chances than having more photo-ops with the Taoiseach and Tánaiste, Fianna Fáil’s Jim O’Callaghan has come up with one.

O’Callaghan points to Ireland’s hard sell in reminding others that we are a country that complies with the highest standards of human rights as set down by United Nations conventions.

But, as O’Callaghan has noted, there is a flaw in that argument, as we have yet to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT). Though we signed it over a decade ago, in October 2007, we have yet to ratify it by introducing the necessary legislation.

Back in November 2012 former Tánaiste, Éamon Gilmore told the Dáil that the Government would publish the legislation required to ratify OPCAT, namely the Inspection of Places of Detention, Bill the following year, ie., 2013.

Almost five years later there is no sign of it, though Justice Minister, Charlie Flanagan now says he will be ready to publish it later this year.

Hopefully he will, and we can tick another box in our UNSC campaign.

If not, then just imagine the size of the show that Varadkar & Co., will have to put on to distract from it.

Derek Mooney is a communications and public affairs consultant. He previously served as a Ministerial Adviser to the Fianna Fáil-led government 2004 – 2010. His column appears here every Tuesday Follow Derek on Twitter: @dsmooney

Pic: Merrion Street

From top: A member of the Dublin Senior football team laying a wreath at the Ulster Tower at the Somme, France in May; DUP leader Arlene Foster (standing) and Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill (in black) at the Ulster final between Fermanagh and Donegal in Clones, County Monaghan last Sunday; Derek Mooney

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Though I am tempted to pretend that I recall this dusty old phrase from my days doing inter-cert Latin in Synge St., the truth is that I only know it from watching The West Wing.

It is the title of episode two of season one and its significance is explained by the President Bartlett character when it translates it to his staff saying:

“‘After it, therefore because of it.’ It means one thing follows the other, therefore it was caused by the other. But it’s not always true, in fact it’s hardly ever true.”

Yet another “The West Wing” truism. Nonetheless, the point is well made. It’s a common mistake in politics to so imagine that there is order and logic in events that we manage to project some form of order and sequencing on to them.

In politics, the cock-up theory more often applies than the conspiracy one.

But, just as we should not presume that Event A caused Event B to happen simply because one thing follows another, neither should we assume that there can be no other relationship between the two except causation.

The relationship between actions and events in politics can be far more complex than it may at first seem.

All of this is a somewhat convoluted way of explaining why I think the Dublin Senior Football team was one of the key architects of Arlene Foster’s visit to the Ulster Final in Clones last Sunday, even if is was a bit inadvertent.

Back in May last a group from Dublin GAA, including several players from the senior football team, visited the Ulster Memorial Tower as part of a tour of WWI sites around the Somme.

The Ulster Tower marks the spot near Thiepval in France from where the 36th Ulster Division attacked the German lines on the first day of the Battle of the Somme on July 1, 1916. Though they were one of the few divisions to make significant gains on the day, they came at a very heavy price. During the fifteen or so hours of battle that day the Ulster Division endured over 5,000 casualties and saw 2,069 of their comrades killed.

Though the Dublin GAA visit was low key and done with a minimum of fuss and publicity, news of it quickly spread courtesy of a generous online acknowledgement by the Somme Association of the respect paid by the team.

Am I saying that Arlene Foster’s trip to Clones to watch Fermanagh play in the Ulster Final was the direct and inevitable consequence of Dublin GAA’s Thiepval trip? No, I am not. But I am saying that simple, but sincere, actions, such as those of the Dublin GAA senior team did help set background for Arlene Foster’s visit to Clones.

This does not take anything away from the significance of her action – and action is the right word, because it was an action not merely a gesture.

Though she is not the first DUP leader to attend a GAA match, back in early 2012 then then leader and First Minister, Peter Robinson attended a McKenna cup final alongside the late Martin McGuinness, it was a welcome move in the context of the political entrenchment from both Sinn Féin and the DUP over the past year and a half.

While the rules of political dynamics may tempt some to start listing the gestures or actions that they now want to see Mary Lou McDonald or Michelle O’Neill perform as some form reciprocation, that would be a mistake. Though Sinn Féin are the masters of making demands of others, out-Sinn-Féin-ing the Shinners won’t move us forward.

The kudos in these situations comes not with doing something in response to demands, particularly demands from the other side, but in doing something almost spontaneous. I say “almost” as any such moves are calculated politically with an eye to the reaction, nonetheless the spontaneity comes from your assessment that this is the right time and this is the right move.

Hopefully, this is also what has motivated today’s outreach to the Orange Order by Mary Lou, which should also be welcomed, though it is still at the gesture stage and has not fully matured to an action.

Either way, while there is still a long way to go, seeing the political dynamic in the North change from negative to positive is still progress, by which I mean it is good to see the two main parties potentially begin to up the ante on how far they can reach across to the other, rather that how hard they can poke the other in the eye.

That said, while seeing Arlene and Michelle spend an hour or two attending a game together is positive, it is nowhere near as positive as seeing the two of them in a meeting room together hammering out an agreement that would allow both the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly to get back to work.

Not that this will be an easy task just now. While July has never been an easy political month in the North, it is potentially about to become a little more tricky.

A BBC NI Spotlight investigation to be aired later tonight claims to have new information on how the DUP and the UK Vote Leave campaign worked together in the Brexit referendum, particularly in the area of spending.

The programme raises serious questions about the DUP’s Brexit campaign finances, including a massive £435,000 Brexit spending spree, exploring a money trail which BBC Spotlight says leads to Ukraine and beyond.

If its claims prove accurate – and that is a big “if” right now – it will take a lot more than a visit to a GAA game to restore the institutions.

If I were a DUP MP right now I’d start to go into training, as it may require a few of them joining the Riverdance touring company to get this show back on the road.

Derek Mooney is a communications and public affairs consultant. He previously served as a Ministerial Adviser to the Fianna Fáil-led government 2004 – 2010. His column appears here every Tuesday Follow Derek on Twitter: @dsmooney

Top pic: Belfast Newsletter

From top: Fine Gael infographic marking Leo Varadkar’s first 12 months as Taoiseach; Derek Mooney

As part of the hoopla to mark Leo Varadkar’s first year as Taoiseach, Fine Gael produced the nifty infographic (top) setting out some of the new leader’s biggest achievements.

The list offers an interesting insight into what the Taoiseach cares most about or, to be more accurate, what the Fine Gael pollsters tell him that his potential voters care most about.

Pride of place goes to the very frequently hyped national framework plan, Project Ireland 2040, followed by “Brexit Leadership” and the “8th Referendum”.

At the other end you find “and gardai” shoehorned into a claim about hiring more nurses and teachers, followed by curiously worded item on housing, though the word itself fails to make an appearance.

To avoid embarrassing Leo by putting a figure on the number of houses and apartments built over the past year, the copywriters had to come up with some phrasing that managed to convey the idea of progress, without breaching the standards in advertising code.

The result is this extraordinarily clunky and impersonal boast that:

“There were 4,700 exits from homelessness in 2017”.

“Exits”? If ever a single phrase summed up Orwell’s description of political language “… as giving an appearance of solidity to pure wind”, it is surely this.

It reads as if it came from the pen of someone who writes real estate ads. You know the ones, where “open plan apartment” means the bed is between the cooker and the lavatory and “close to nightlife” means the place is directly over an all-night, bikers’ bar.

No one even vaguely familiar with the presentation of political issues could have signed off on such a phrase. Some alternative wordings must have been considered, such as “families housed”, “homes built” or even the horrid stock civil service phrase “net reductions”.

The fact that these were rejected in favour of “exits” tells you what a tough task some poor Fine Gael wordsmith had trying to script anything even vaguely resembling an achievement on housing or tackling homelessness.

They knew they had to mention the issue somewhere on the list, so there the line sits. Not mentioning it would have caused a bigger outrage. That is the problem with a record like Leo’s, when it comes to housing not only are the statistics bad, they cannot even be trusted not to be worse.

Up to very recently the Government was claiming that 85,000 houses had been built between 2011 and 2017. In reality, as the CSO has recently confirmed, only 53,000 houses were built over that period. An over-estimate of 31,000. Meanwhile, nationwide between 2014 and 2017, local authorities only built 818 houses.

When it comes to the housing crisis there is no end to the bleak statistics. Over 9,500 people are homeless in Ireland today, over 3,500 of whom are children. Rents increased last year by 7.1%.
So why, with this being such a horrendous issue for Fine Gael, is Leo talking up the chances of there being a no confidence motion in his Housing Minister?

Well, because that is what today’s Fine Gael does. Gone are the days of Enda’s obfuscation and microphone dodging, Leo’s Fine Gael is now the party of high theatricality.

Every event, every issue, every announcement is approached as if it was a one-off scene in a theatre or movie production. The focus is not on the narrative or the plot, it is all about the staging and the positioning.

Since the judicious leaking of Leo’s comments at the Fine Gael party meeting, warning of a possible Sinn Féin motion of no confidence in Minister Eoghan Murphy that would see Fianna Fáil take a kicking, the focus has not been on the issue of housing but on the party politics of the issue of housing.

We are talking about housing while not talking about it. It is the perfect Fine Gael production. Lots of high drama, plenty of column inches and dozens of social media posts featuring pictures of Leo and Eoghan, but no content.

Not a single word about policy or actual outputs. At the end of the drama everyone is precisely in the same place as they were at the start. Nothing progresses. It’s lights, cameras and no bloody action.

But through it all, Leo gets what he wants. There is a little less public discussion of the substantial housing and cervical smear controversies. He positions himself as the man above the partisan political fray, not wanting an election but caught between the warring Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin tribes.

And, in a piece of masterful timing, all of this just after a very well received visit to Northern Ireland and just before welcoming Jean Claude Juncker to Ireland for discussions in advance of the following week’s June EU summit on Brexit.

As political productions go, it was spot on. Well executed, beautifully timed and nicely played, but as with all cinematic and theatrical productions, the appearance should not be confused with reality.

The production crew who brought you last weeks’ no no-confidence motion spectacle also staged last November’s weekend long melodrama turned farce: The Saving of Frances – and that one did not turn out the way they had planned.

The worry is that this is all the FG crew has in store for us over the coming weeks and months, more and more productions and no governing. If so, then the election cannot come soon enough.

Yes, we do have Brexit looming on the horizon and there is an argument that we do not need a month or so of uncertainty at this critical juncture, but there is no major disagreement between the major parties on Brexit and anyway the negotiations are being led on a day to day basis by Barnier and his Brussels team with input from senior Irish officials.

A three-and-a-half week long, high octane campaign that results in a government team that is really prepared to govern, even if getting that government takes a few weeks of horse trading, is far preferable to a year or more of maximum quality, minimum content productions only timed for the next opinion poll.

Derek Mooney is a communications and public affairs consultant. He previously served as a Ministerial Adviser to the Fianna Fáil-led government 2004 – 2010. His column appears here every Tuesday Follow Derek on Twitter: @dsmooney


From top: Home to Vote has done its job. argues Derek Mooney

Type #HomeToVote into Google and you will find pages and pages of links to news items from around the globe detailing the stories of thousands of young Irish emigres traveling back to vote at the recent referendum.

You need to dive a few pages into the results to find items relating to the 2015 origins of the hashtag during the Marriage Equality campaign. Its history, in so much as there is a history, is set out on pages 158-159 of Ireland Says Yes: The Inside Story of How the Vote for Marriage Equality Was Won (One of the books on my 2017 Summer political reading list).

#HomeToVote spontaneously appeared late in the afternoon on the eve of polling day. The campaign had its own #BeMyYes campaign which had generated tens of thousands of messages from people committing themselves to Vote Yes, including many from young Irish people abroad considering returning home.

But back in 2015, #HomeToVote was unplanned, and was all the more effective for that. Within hours the slow trickle of posts turned into a viral sensation, one commemorated by the great Annie West #HomeToVote cartoon.

Between 5pm on Thursday May 21 and 5pm Friday May 22 (polling day) around 72,000 messages were posted online using #HomeToVote.

As a campaign awareness tool, it was superb. Its viral reach brought the story of the campaign to news sites and online journals across the globe in the final hours of the campaign.

But its greatest strength was as an online mobilisation tool for what campaigners call GOTV, getting out the vote. Not just because of the many voters who returned home to vote but because of the many more people it motivated in the last day of the campaign to get out and vote Yes.

The message was clear: there are young people prepared to travel from half way around the world to vote to secure the rights of others, so the least you can do is to take 30 minutes to get to the polling station and vote.

Where the 2015 marriage equality #HomeToVote was spontaneous and unexpected, the 2018 incarnation was not just planned, it was an important element of a well-honed campaign strategy.

That is not a criticism. This is what successful campaigns do. They see what works elsewhere and adapt it to their own situation.

Both sides, Yes and No, saw the success of the campaign the first time around and realised that they both needed their own #HomeToVote operation – only one side did it much more effectively.

The 2018 cohort was as motivated and determined as their antecedents. Their 8th Ref #HomeToVote stories of the enormous lengths they went to, just to get back to cast their ballot were every bit as moving as those of 2015.

There were two differences, though and both relate to this being a planned operation, rather than a spontaneous one. Neither of these undermine the validity of the exercise, this time around, but do raise questions about any third outing for #Hometovote.

The first is the 18-month rule. Traveling back to vote is not an open-ended invitation. Section 11.3 of the 1992 Electoral Act says that Irish citizens may retain the right to vote at home, for up to 18 months after moving away, but only on the condition that they intend to return to Ireland within that timeframe.

The second difference was the added element that well-intentioned third parties might be willing to offer help to those considering returning home-to-vote but finding the cost a barrier. There were various suggestions that flights or travel costs could be crowdfunded.

I don’t question anyone’s motives here, but I do think suggestions of paying for those going to vote is approaching the point where #HomeToVote ceases to be a positive GOTV campaigning tool and comes very close to straying over the line.

Section 135 of the above mentioned 1992 Electoral Act sets out what constitutes bribery at an election, specifically a Dáil election. It makes it illegal to

“give valuable consideration to induce a voter to vote, or to procure the election of any person or the vote of any voter, or on account of a voter having voted”

It then defines “give”, “induce” and “procure” to include agreeing or promising or attempting to give, induce or procure directly or indirectly. Similarly, it defines “valuable consideration” as including the giving, lending or agreeing to give or lend, or the offer or promise to procure any money, money’s worth or valuable security or any valuable consideration or any office, place or employment to or for any person.

So, is offering to pay for one’s flight home to vote an offence in and of itself? What is the situation if it is only on the condition that they vote a certain way? And what if you offer to pay for the flight and also throw in a few Euros to cover meals and drinks?

How would we feel about a #HomeToVote operation in a constituency where party X only held its seat by a dozen or so votes, or where party Y was just a handful of votes short of the final seat the last time out?

Would we all be as understanding of a #HomeToVote operation that was so narrowly focussed and financed? Would we see it as positive and altruistic?

It is not as if we cannot imagine such situations arising. It is almost exactly a year since allegations of voter fraud were flying about in the Derry constituency of Foyle when the sitting SDLP MP, Mark Durkan was beaten by just 169 votes.

Those allegations focused on the surprising increase in the number of proxy votes issued. In Northern Ireland, and the UK, people can apply to vote by proxy (i.e. appoint someone to vote on their behalf) if they are going to be at work, away or have some other reason that prevents them from getting to their polling station.

The number of proxy votes applied for in Foyle, in 2017 was about 300% higher than the 2015 general election figure, roughly equivalent to 1,000 extra votes. Remember the winning margin was 169 votes.

Not only that, but the distribution of these extra proxy votes was not exactly even across the constituency. They were concentrated in specific areas, with some of these having a proxy vote rate more than 17 times the UK average.

It is a reminder that a well-intentioned scheme to encourage greater participation can be abused by unscrupulous individuals and outfits.

#HomeToVote was too iconic to be allowed fall into the same hands. It has done its job, now it should be let slip into retirement.

But the cause of increasing voter participation should not be allowed slip away with it. This is yet another reason why we need the immediate establishment of the independent Electoral Commission promised back in February 2011.

It is well past time we took the electoral process more seriously by giving it the resources it deserves and stop leaving it up to a few over stretched officials scattered across the councils.

Derek Mooney is a communications and public affairs consultant. He previously served as a Ministerial Adviser to the Fianna Fáil-led government 2004 – 2010. His column appears here every Tuesday Follow Derek on Twitter: @dsmooney

Top pic: Twitter

Meanwhile…

Top from left: the first deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, Seamus Mallon; former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern; Senator George Mitchell; and Gerry Adams, at an event to mark the 20th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, at Queen’s University, Belfast last month; Derek Mooney

In a week when a referendum campaign that has managed to divide some of us comes, mercifully, to an end; it is worth recalling that this week, in fact this day, marks the twentieth anniversary of a referendum that briefly united us across this island.

Twenty years ago today, almost 2.5 million people across this island went to the polls to vote on accepting the Good Friday Agreement. Just over 2.1 million of them said Yes to the Agreement while 360,000 voted against.

The results, North and South, endorsed what the parties had agreed at Stormont Buildings and saw Northern Ireland set to see a return of devolution based on partnership government.

Heady days. But anyone who thought that having such a sizeable public endorsement and mandate for the Good Friday Agreement was going to ensure its smooth and speedy implementation was soon to be sorely disappointed.

Even though 71.1% of Northern Irish voters who turned out to vote (the turnout was a healthy 81.1%) voted Yes and that this 71.1% still represented about 58% of all voters in Northern Ireland, the establishment of the institutions, particularly the Executive and the Assembly was painfully slow and pitiably erratic.

The Executive was more often suspended than it was sustained in the early years… just as it is now. How little has changed.

Actually, that last part is not that true. Though it is easy to be cynical and say that Northern Ireland politics is still as bitter and divided as it was prior to 1998, that is a simplistic analysis. In reality, things have changed and politics has improved.

Gone are the days when the only times that politicians from either side of the divide in the North could meet to discuss their differences was in private and out of sight of their own colleagues, lest they be accused of selling out or being a Lundy (Robert Lundy is now reviled as the Governor of Derry who sold out to the Catholic James II and betrayed the Williamites during the 1688 siege of the city).

The DUP who were opponents of the Good Friday and opposed it from without – one might say besieged it – are now on the inside and although the DUP are not now in the Executive, they have provided three DUP First Ministers to serve alongside a Sinn Féin Deputy First Minister, the late Martin McGuinness.

Where once the declined to be seen together, DUP and Sinn Féin MPs and MLAs now appear regularly in TV and Radio studios to engage directly and debate, if debate is, at times, the right word.

Yes, there are many issues still to be resolved such as parity of esteem and respect for cultural identity and difference, but progress has been real, though persistently faltering.

But, falteringly is how politics works in divided communities. It takes years for trust to build and for politicians to foster the personal relationships, across the political divides, needed to make the institutions work.

Many important issues that seemed difficult two decades ago and completely intractable and beyond resolution only a decade before that, have been tackled. These include  decommissioning, reform of policing and changes to the criminal justice system.

Perhaps they were a form of political low hanging fruit. The more ripened and mature issues that were so clearly and obviously difficult that both sides had been preparing themselves to deal with them.

While the outstanding issues that prevent a return of the Executive and Assembly remains may seem trivial alongside something like decommissioning, they are still totemic and run to the heart of the Good Friday Agreement. What is missing in the political impetus – an impetus that must again come jointly from London and Dublin.

Nationalists and Republicans feel that the lack of official recognition of the Irish Language suggests that they do not belong. Unionists fear that nationalists are attempting to hollow out their Britishness and see the Irish language as a wedge.

But aren’t these two sides of the same coin? Isn’t the resolution of one the resolution of the other?

Meanwhile the two sides, by which I mean the DUP and Sinn Féin claim a mandate for their own intransigence, based on recent Assembly and Westminster results, yet ignore the fact that these mandates came from falsely accusing the other side of being the intransigent one and demanding the mandate to face down the other.

It is what Seamus Mallon has called “…the hypocrisies which are unbelievable and the untruths which are believable.” As he said at the recent QUB anniversary of the signing of the Good Friday Agreement:

“Politics has been debased and diminished by these two political silos which have almost Balkanised the Northern Ireland that I live in… It is the future we should be looking at.”

Maybe it is comments such as this that compels Sinn Féin to oppose Mallon being granted the Freedom of Drogheda?

Throughout his political career Mallon has been forthright in condemning the Provos and their apologists. But he has also been just as vehement in opposing all violence, from whatever its source. Just as he continues to be as fierce in standing with all victims and demanding that those responsible for creating the victims be held to account.

Mallon’s current work with TARP – The Truth and Reconciliation Platform – alongside Stephen Travers, Eugene Reavey, Alan McBride and others, makes him a suitable candidate for the Freedom of Drogheda, let alone his achievements as an SDLP MLA, MP, Deputy Leader, Senator or Deputy First Minister.

The horrible reality is that Sinn Féin’s opposition the Mallon being granted the honour is part of a much wider and darker attempt to rewrite recent political history and airbrush out all those whose acknowledgement expose its dark and murky past.

There will be another example of it later this year when the Provos attempt to claim that their campaign of terror against the two communities was born out of the Civil Rights movement – the very antithesis of what the Provos campaign was about.

Much has changed and improved in the twenty years since we voted together for a new start in the North. It is right to celebrate and commemorate that, once we realise that there is still a good deal of work to be done that includes addressed what TARP’s Stephen Travers has called:

“The pain that continues to cripple society in the North will eventually totally disable it if it is not addressed very soon. The real urgency, and the first priority, is not reconciliation; it is the acknowledgment, by both sides, that terrible things were done in their name.”

Derek Mooney is a communications and public affairs consultant. He previously served as a Ministerial Adviser to the Fianna Fáil-led government 2004 – 2010. His column appears here every Tuesday Follow Derek on Twitter: @dsmooney

From top: Pro-life campaigner Maria Steen and Solidarity–People Before Profit TD Brid Smith on last night’s Claire Byrne Live; Derek Mooney

On the morning after the night before’s hyped-up 8thRef Claire Byrne debate: committed Yes campaigners are insisting that the Yes side won it while staunch No activists are declaring with equal ferocity that their side prevailed.

In my own view, neither side significantly moved the dial among undecided voters with the real loser in the whole sorry mess being public sector broadcasting.

This was not the fault of the presenter/moderator Claire Byrne or any of the lead speakers for the Yes or No sides, but of the folk in RTÉ who decided that having daytime TV style confrontation in front of a cheering crowd was the best way to discuss a fraught, complex and emotionally charged issue.

What was needed was a calm, respectful and reflective discussion, in its place we got a he said/she said wall of noise. It needed Jeremy Vine, we got Jeremy Kyle.

All that was missing to make the Jerry Springer Show effect complete were lurid chyrons running across the bottom of the screen screaming the titles of upcoming shows: I get turned on by number 1s, but not number 2s or Spoiler Alert: they’re topping the poll.

OK, I exaggerate, though the Brid Smith versus Maria Steen encounter, complete with audience boos and hisses, did make me wonder if Steve Wilkos and a team of black t-shirted security staff were waiting just off camera.

So, what was the problem with the format? It was the audience. Not any one individual or even a group of individuals, but rather the constant and incessant cheering and clapping for speakers on their side and the hectoring of those on the other.

No doubt, each side will claim that the other one went further in heckling or shouting down the other, but that doesn’t matter.

The question is why the debate was formatted and structured in such a way as to allow them to do it. Actually, if I was really bad minded, I might even wonder if is was structured in such a way as to encourage it?

Think back to any of the US presidential debates of the last decade or so. In each of them, the moderator has opened proceedings by setting out the debate rules, as decided by the US agency that arranges the debates: The Commission on Presidential Debates.

The host then explains that the audience must remain absolutely silent for the duration of the debate, with the exception of welcoming both candidates out on to the stage, so that people at home can focus on what the candidates are saying.

Opening the second presidential debate of the 2012 campaign between President Obama and Mitt Romney, the moderator CNN’s Candy Crowley, announced:

“The audience here in the hall has agreed to be polite and attentive — no cheering or booing or outbursts of any sort.”

The format of this debate was what American broadcasters call a town hall. There ordinary voters ask their questions of the candidates directly, but that audience is made up of uncommitted voters chosen by independent pollsters.

Much of last night’s audience were chosen by the two campaigns. Both of whom seemed more interested in getting as many loud and vocal people there as possible.

I know that I am at risk of sounding po-faced, or even hypocritical. I have not been averse, in the past, of doing a bit of fairly boisterous heckling at political discussions – not all of them involving other parties.

Like many politicos of my vintage this also included a few stints in the audience of the grand old dame of Irish TV political debates Questions and Answers.

There I would attempt my faltering impression of an innocent member of the public. It was unconvincing. Indeed, the only thing worse was my dire impression of an electable politician, but we live and learn.

I know that political shows can be boring or tedious and need a bit of showbiz and spectacle from time to time. I realise that listening to a procession of TDs and Senators drone on can be a ratings killer. But going the opposite way is not the answer.

The secret is knowing when the time is right and how far to go. Last night was an example of getting the mix wrong – and it is not the first time.

We saw the same format deployed to equally unsatisfactory effect almost seven years ago in the 2011 presidential election debates – though that night had the added frisson of dodgy tweets.

Surely the only lesson they learned in the intervening time cannot just be: don’t read out the Tweets?

While we do not need to go as far as setting up a dedicated quango dealing with debates, be they presidential, Dáil or referendum along the lines of U.S. Commission on Presidential Debates, the decision on formats should not rest with the broadcasters alone.

There should be a role for an independent electoral commission, charged with overseeing our electoral process.To be fair, this government is looking at setting up such a commission.

The 2016 Programme for Government states:

A) Establishing an Electoral Commission

We believe that Ireland needs an independent electoral commission, as a matter of priority.

The new commission should examine the voter registration process and in particular the possibility of the PPS system being used to automatically add people to the electoral register once they reach voting age.

It should also look at ways to increase participation in our political process through voter education and turnout.

The new commission could also:

Assume the role of Registrar of political parties

Regulate political funding and election expenditure

Oversee the Referendum Commission, which would be a sub-section of the commission

The newly established Electoral Commission would be independent of Government and directly accountable to the Oireachtas.

As with many things the promise is there, it’s the action that is missing. The last time the electoral commission issue was raised with Taoiseach in the Dáil appears to have been back in October 2017.

Back then he said:

“There is no timeframe for it. It is very much a long-term project.”

Given that this government’s remaining time in office can be best measured in months, not years, we see that 2011 and 2016’s “priority” is today’s: “Meh, we may get around to it.”

To be fair, in the hierarchy of this Government’s broken promises this one does come a fair bit down the list, but that does not excuse its lethargy.

With a little bit of political will and Dáil time the legislation could be processed speedily. A nascent Electoral Commission could be in place for a presidential election later this year.

Much of the preparatory work has already been done. The various reports, consultation and scoping documents are already there. I understand that the Department of Environment has been preparing a Regulatory Impact Analysis for a draft Bill.

The aims and intentions of James Lawless’s Online Advertising And Transperancy Bill could be rolled into it too, so that electoral fairness is not depending on the largesse of the IT giants.

So, what’s the delay? Must we wait for Russian interference to finally act?

Derek Mooney is a communications and public affairs consultant. He previously served as a Ministerial Adviser to the Fianna Fáil-led government 2004 – 2010. His column appears here every Tuesday Follow Derek on Twitter: @dsmooney

Watch Claire Byrne Live here

Top pics: RTÉ

From top: the MV Celine at Dublin Port last Friday; Derek Mooney

Up to last Friday it was difficult to find a good visual representation for Brexit in Ireland. Yes, there were maps showing the six counties in one colour and the 26 in another, but apart from those or some grainy photos of border posts and black coated customs men standing behind old tin signs emblazoned “Stad”, there were few clear, defining symbols for Brexit in an Irish context.

That all changed last Friday.

The change came in the form of a ship. But not just any ship. This one, christened the MV Celine by the Taoiseach and assorted other lesser celebrities, is the world’s largest short sea, roll-on roll-off cargo vessel. It will directly connect Ireland to the European continent via Rotterdam and Zeebrugge, by-passing the UK entirely.

As images go, it is an impressive one. But the image-makers real triumph lay in finding an appropriate nickname for the newly named ship.

While “Celine” may be the official name that adorns the ship’s champagne drenched hull, the spinners on the quayside were intent that the media – and by extension we – call it by their chosen soubriquet: “the Brexit Buster”.

What a coupling, a damned big ship with an on-message nickname. It is a neat piece of messaging, conveying the impression that Ireland is ready and prepared for the worst that Brexit can throw at us.

The MV Celine’s statistics are striking. At 234m in length, the Celine is, in terms of capacity, twice the size of any other ferry currently operating out of Dublin Port. It can hold 580 standard truck trailers along 8km of parking lanes.

But size isn’t everything.

The real significance of the MV Celine is that it points to our post Brexit trading future. A future where Ireland’s EU27 imports and exports no longer must go via the UK and suffer the hassle, time delay and cost of having to going through not one, but two, sets of customs and border patrols as they enter and then exit the UK.

This is important as around 80% of Irish road freight, destined for the rest of the EU, goes across the UK. This is what some call our land bridge to EU, though it is hardly much of a land bridge when you must take a ferry at each end.

If you want a sense of the scale and extent of the delay and inconvenience we will may face in the worst post Brexit scenarios, then consider this simple fact: goods going through Dover from outside the EU take 15 times longer to process compared to those coming from within the EU (45 minutes from outside versus 3 minutes from inside).

Can you imagine the accumulated tail backs there will be at British ports? Now, multiply all those delays by two as Irish goods going to or from the EU across the UK will have to face those potential delays twice: once as they enter the UK and once as they leave it.

In the absence of some alternative direct routes, the UK’s national customs computer system will be handling both the inward declarations of Irish exports to the UK and the transit of Irish goods travelling through the UK and on to mainland Europe.

But, the UK’s national customs computer system is due to be replaced, with the new Customs Declaration Service (CDS) system due to launch in January 2019, two months before the UK brexits. As if that were not worrying enough, a UK National Audit Office 2017 review of the UK customs computer system’s readiness for Brexit found that

“…there is still a significant amount of work to complete, and there is a risk that HMRC (Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs) will not have the full functionality and scope of CDS in place by March 2019…”

So, assuming the British government does what it currently says it will and exits both the Customs Union and the Single Market as well as the EU, then it is essential that Ireland to look for better routes to send our good to and from the rest of Europe.

These routes are vital for us as an island nation as seaborne freight accounts for 84% of Ireland’s trade in terms of volume and 62% in terms of its value. It is also highly focused on one location with 46% of all seaborne trade (by volume) passing through Dublin Port.

But, impressive as the MV Celine may be, one ship is not going to be the solution to our problems. Neither will two or three such vessels.

The real value and importance of the MV Celine right now is not the number of trucks she can carry every 38 hours to Belgium or Holland, but rather in the policy course she sets.

Should we now be looking at developing new direct shipping routes with mainland Europe, particularly with France, Belgium and the Netherlands?

But that question begets another one, are we right to assume that all these new routes should have Dublin port as their Irish hub? Should we not now be seriously evaluating our infrastructure capacity and looking to develop other Irish ports to serve these new shipping routes?

Some 60% of the trade at Dublin Port involves the UK – would it not make more sense, especially as they are investing in new customs and border facilities at the port, to make Dublin the key point of entry for our UK only good traffic, along with Drogheda and some other ports along the eastern seaboard?

Might this be a way of freeing up some extremely valuable land in and around Dublin Port for much needed high-density development in the centre of the city?

Might Brexit planning provide an opportunity for dusting off the PD’s 2006 New Quarter proposal, though this time with a more sensible and scaled down version that does not see the whole of Dublin Port shut down and shipped Northwards.

We should be considering expanding Rosslare and/or developing a new purpose-built port along the South East or Southern coasts to serve the new fast EU shipping routes.

One of the potential attraction of Rosslare, as Irish Rail was keen to tell the Seanad Special Select Committee on Brexit, is that Irish Rail is the port authority for Rosslare-Europort and so investment plans could be put in place that do not impact on the debt levels of Irish semi-state-owned ports.

Not only that but including Irish ports in the trans-European transport policy (TEN-T) could mean EU infrastructural funding for the “necessary modifications to Irish ports”.

Modification is an understatement. Increased direct shipping volumes with mainland Europe would require major infrastructural investment to provide modern facilities that provide for the speedy and high-tech loading of these faster roll-on/roll off vessels.

Perhaps the image of the ship is all the government wants just for now and so it sees its job as done, for now. Hopefully this is not the case, though it often seems to be this government’s modus operandi.

Hopefully there are contingency plans sitting on a desk somewhere while Ministers and officials wait to see if Theresa May eventually opts, when all other avenues are hopefully closed off, to take the avenue of keeping the UK in either “a” or “the” Customs Union and “a” or “the” Single Market.

If she doesn’t, then we will have very little time to act. So, now is a good time to start the feasibility planning and commence talking to a variety of international experts who know how to build, equip and run these modern ports.

Maybe that way we can turn the floating impression that Ireland is ready and prepared for Brexit into a more anchored reality.

Derek Mooney is a communications and public affairs consultant. He previously served as a Ministerial Adviser to the Fianna Fáil-led government 2004 – 2010. His column appears here every Tuesday Follow Derek on Twitter: @dsmooney

Rollingnews

From top: Isreali Defence Forces at the Qalandiya Crossing, a passageway for Palestinian labourers from the Ramallah area to cross into Jerusalem; Derek Mooney

The story of the kerfuffle caused by the Lord Mayor of Dublin’s trip to the West Bank reminded me of how my own ill-fated trip there, back in 2004.

That visit ended in me sitting in my boxers in a security room in Ben Gurion Airport. A fate fortunately not visited on our city’s first citizen.

I had been visiting Israel and the West Bank along with three colleagues. We were part of a group from Glencree that was organising study visits to Ireland by Israeli and Palestinian politicians to meet key players in the Irish peace process, both North and South.

Our purpose was to catch up with some of those who had been on the last visit and prepare for the next one. Our four-day trip, had been planned in conjunction with our Department of Foreign affairs and had the support of the Israeli Embassy in Dublin.

It included meetings with Israeli politicians and officials in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and an overnight stay for two of us in Ramallah in the West Bank, where we would meet politicians and officials from the Palestinian side.

The President of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat, had died a few weeks earlier. So, when the two of us reached Ramallah, which is just a short drive from Jerusalem, the speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council was now the acting President, and his deputy, a very charming GP who had trained in Dublin, was the Acting Speaker.

The acting speaker could not have been more welcoming, both in his office – where he talked fondly of his time as a medical student in Dublin – and on the floor of the Council chamber where he formally welcomed us to Ramallah and wished our project well.

This was all shown on Palestinian TV later that night – a channel that is watched assiduously by Israeli military intelligence.

He then brought us to visit Chairman Arafat’s tomb, where I was asked to lay a wreath (which I still swear to this day, I had to pay for on the spot). Another event that made it on to the Ramallah 6.01 News.

The following day we returned to Jerusalem via the dreadful Kalandia/Qalandiya crossing where ordinary West Bank Palestinians queue for hours to go through this highly militarised and barbed wire strewn checkpoint to get into Israel.

Before we returned to our hotel in old East Jerusalem we had a quick detour back to Tel Aviv for a last-minute meeting with the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, Amos Gilead – a meeting which his office had requested, as he wanted to talk with us about the Northern Ireland peace process.

Early the following morning two of us headed for home, leaving our colleagues to stay another night and finish off the itinerary. One of them borrowed my travel adaptor.

The hotel had ordered a taxi to take us to Ben Gurion airport. As you would expect Israeli airport security is tight, very tight. You are advised to arrive at least three or four hours ahead of your flight to allow time for all the checks. We were about four hours early.

As we queued up to leave in our suitcases, I heard an official call my name. I went with him, handed in my suitcase, watched it go through the scanner and then, rather than proceeding through the rest of the lengthy security screening channel with the rest of the passengers, including my colleague, I was invited to join the official in an interview room. Not a good omen.

There two army officers were waiting to have a chat with me. They took my passport, my mobile phone and my laptop bag and put them to one side. I could see pictures of me in Ramallah in the folder in front of them.

They then proceeded to ask me about the purpose of my trip. I produced my letters of introduction from the Israeli ambassador, explained why we were there and indicated generally what we had been doing. The questioning continued for about 40 minutes. The two officers then left the room.

When they returned they said they wanted to search me. I was told to remove my belt, shoes, trousers and jacket, these all were taken away. I was then asked to unbutton my shirt. “Would you not buy me a few drinks and dinner first?” was the question that popped into my mind – but luckily it stopped there and never made it to my mouth.

They next turned their attention to my mobile phone and laptop. Through habit I had turned my mobile off as I was queing up. They asked for my pin number. I refused.

They then tried to turn on my laptop. I had not switched it off properly the night before and so the battery was flat. They found the charger but saw that it came with big UK/Ireland three pin plug. Israeli sockets are like US ones, though with V shaped slots.

They asked for the adaptor. I explained that I had given it to one of my colleagues. How could they charge my laptop to see what was on it, they asked?

Seeing that we were in an airport, I suggested that one of them pop down to the travel shop and buy one. They were not amused. I then explained that even if they could get the laptop recharged that I had no intention of giving them the password.

I then reminded them that my visit had been organised in conjunction with the Israeli foreign ministry and that I the night before I had been meeting with their boss, Amos Gilead at the Israeli Defence department. They were unfazed.

After a few more pointless questions and even more pointless answers, they left me alone in the interview room for another hour or so.

About 20 minutes before my flight was due to depart, I was handed back my phone and laptop, given my boarding pass and the rest of my clothes and then rushed through the terminal and escorted on to the flight. I was the last one to board.

Luckily, I was allowed to make my own way to my seat, though arriving in a state of semi undress did mean that the elderly woman seated next to me avoided all eye contact for the whole of the flight.

I mention this as I have a business contact who once ended up being marched up to his seat in handcuffs.

His ‘crime’ was doing a quick overnight trip to speak at a conference in Tel Aviv and not being able to tell airport security afterwards the name of the hotel where he stayed – he hadn’t booked it and all business hotel rooms look alike – or explain why the sum total of his luggage consisted of old socks and briefs tucked into his laptop case.

So, apart from now being an amusing anecdote, is there a serious point to all of this? Yes, there are two.

The first, is that the Israeli authorities treat their friends and allies every bit as badly as they treat their foes. This goes for Israelis as much as it goes for outsiders.

Which brings me to the second and more important point. While we are right to be highly critical of the Israeli government, especially Netanyahu’s hawkishness, we should not forget that there are many moderate and progressive Israelis who still believe in the two-state solution and who recognise that, just as in Northern Ireland, there are no sustainable security solutions to a political problem.

I am appalled by how successive Israeli governments have moved from the policies of Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, but I do not see how Ireland adopting the BDS strategy of boycott, divestment and sanctions, as urged by some in Dublin City Council, does anything except play into the hands of the hawks.

Instead of urging sanctions we should insisting that the Government act on its commitment on page 144 of the Partnership Programme for Government:

‘…to recognise the State of Palestine as part of a lasting settlement of the conflict’

In December 2014 the Dáil agreed a motion to ‘officially recognise the State of Palestine on the basis of the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital…’

Another Dáil Motion tabled on 22 June 2016 and signed by most members of the opposition, called for the government to finally act on these commitments and do what eight other EU  Member States have done and recognise Palestine.

It is long past time that we did it.

Derek Mooney is a communications and public affairs consultant. He previously served as a Ministerial Adviser to the Fianna Fáil-led government 2004 – 2010. His column appears here every Tuesday Follow Derek on Twitter: @dsmooney

Pics: Haretz