From top: Stephen Donnelly and Dan Boyle

Stephen Donnelly was the right man in the wrong party.

Dan Boyle writes:

A project I have been looking forward to see being brought to completion, early next year, is the publication of my third book.

My first two books centred around the development of the Green Party in Ireland and on our experience of being in government. This book is examining the general impact of smaller parties in Irish politics. It’s an impact that I believe has been largely positive.

My motivation in writing the book, among other things, is to record the phenomenon of smaller parties in Ireland, at a time when they seem to have become most entrenched in our political system. A more diverse politics helps to avoid a closeted and claustrophobic system.

At least that has been the basis of my thinking until this week.

Stephen Donnelly is someone I always thought as being incongruous as a Social Democrat. Socially progressive certainly. Dedicated to achieving and applying the highest possible governance standards to the State and to agencies of the State, undoubtedly. An asset to Dáil Éireann and to Irish politics, inarguably.

He is, however, a fiscal conservative/a classic Liberal.

Which is fine in its own right. We could do with more of his ilk to honestly expound on such positions. He isn’t though a Social Democrat.

It was a mistake for him to be involved in the formation of the Social Democrats. A mistake now compounded by his decision to leave so soon afterwards. I fear he may become perceived as his generation’s Noel Browne –  talented but mercurial not being seen as being able to work with others.

I had thought the Social Democrats have had an opportunity to cleave a new niche among the left in Ireland. They have been well positioned to benefit from those unhappy with Labour and uncomfortable with Sinn Féin.

The General Election came too soon for the party. The opportunity to be better prepared did not exist.

A significant strategic mistake was also made in not contesting every constituency. A national vote for the Social Democrats should have been maximised.

By not doing so the party is now more likely to share the trajectory of the Progressive Democrats, becoming reliant on a handful of flagship constituencies, without extending or expanding its national base.

A possibility for a new party on the left in Ireland has now probably receded.

Consolidation would be a more fruitful path to follow. With the proliferation of egos that exists in the sector, and the angels on the head of a pin approach to ideological purity, this seems even less likely to occur.

We could take a more optimistic view and say that Brendan Behan’s maxim that the split is first item on agenda of every new Irish political organisation, no longer holds true.

That now takes at least eighteen months.

Dan Boyle is a former Green Party TD and Senator. Follow Dan on Twitter: @sendboyle

Rollingnews

Yesterday: The Man Who Wasn’t There

From top: Taoiseach Enda Kenny with Apple CEO Tim Cook at Apple’s Cork last November; Dan Boyle

There is a difference between using something as an economic tool, and such tools becoming the very basis of our economy.

Dan Boyle writes:

So Cork has been added to the international tax tourism brouchures as the new go to destination. We’re on page three after Panama and Luxembourg.

As we speak creative copywriters are trying to come up an alliterative tag line to copperfasten our new found international status. I’m hoping they settle on ‘Capers’.

Here I should add the obvious caveat. Apple, as far as Cork and the Irish economy are concerned, is a good company. If it ceased to exist here, or if it contributes less than it has, the results would be catastrophic.

It can be argued that Apple and Ireland have been singled out together for pursuing the cynical and obscene logic of international corporate tax competition to its natural conclusion.

The European Commission, having no competence over our national sovereignty in tax setting or its collection, has used competition policy as something of a Trojan Horse to make its displeasure known.

Where there can be no argument is that multinational corporations, whoever they are, wherever and however they operate, must pay higher sums and more proportionate amounts of corporation tax. The questions that remain to argued are to whom such taxes should be paid and on what basis?

The awesome figures that have been talked about are strictly notional. It is an amount of money that is unlikely to ever be realised.

Years of litigation, regardless of the involvement or not of the Irish government, look set to follow. Part of this process will be dozens of other governments arguing that much of these profits have been made from within their jurisdictions, where no taxes have ever been paid.

If a windfall is to accrue to Ireland we need to be clear that such money should never be used for current expenditure. Windfalls should be invested in housing, public transport, renewable energy or education.

An alternative could be to establish a Citizens’ Dividend divided between each citizen resident in the State. The fund could be drawn down in certain life enhancing or emergency situations. It would be a tidy amount equivalent to twenty years of water charges!

The architecture of cross national corporate taxes is changing significantly and quickly. Ireland has barely stayed one step ahead of these changes. Transparency will be the byword.

We remain quite unprepared for this future world of corporate taxation.

That said there are valid reasons why Ireland has to engage in attracting investment through favourable tax differentials.

We are an island nation. We incur significant additional costs in sending our goods and services to the major population centres on the larger land masses throughout the Globe. We need to make use of different economic tools.

However there is a difference between using something as an economic tool, and such tools becoming the very basis of our economy. That has been where we have been going wrong. Very wrong.

Dan Boyle is a former Green Party TD and Senator. Follow Dan on Twitter: @sendboyle

Rollingnews

Top from left: Kieran Mulvey, Pat Hickey, Annalise Murphy, Shane Ross and John Treacy celebrate Ms Murphy’s silver in the sailing on the eve of Pat Hickey’s arrest in Rio; Dan Boyle

Pat Hickey and Shane Ross are helping make a soap opera out of a crisis.

Dan Boyle writes:

It’s difficult to get hooked into any soap opera when all its characters are unsympathetic. In Rio there is at least the advantage of an exotic locale.

The telenovela currently being produced is not likely though to endear itself to key sectors of the audience, its narrative being overtly soaked in testosterone.

The cast is full of JRs but there is no Bobby Ewing.

On the one hand we have the egomaniacal and international prestige junkie, who is not a politician but is more political in his approach to his work than anyone can be.

On the other hand we have the actual politician, who has traded on being an anti-political and who is finding it difficult to transition from poacher to gamekeeper.

He too seems obsessed with a need for constant ego gratification. The soap aficionado, whose predeliction is misery would be better to stick with ‘Eastenders’.

And yet my sympathy gravitates towards the hapless politician. His dislikeable characteristics aside, he does hold a public office which brings with it the need to protect the public interest along with the public purse strings.

It’s unfortunate that the barrister proferring the advice that the Minister “should be put back in his box” is female. It spoils the mental image of an exaggerated moustache being stroked. It also confuses disdain for an individual with disdain for the State.

The Minister hasn’t helped, of course, by resorting to the default reactionary mode so beloved by him and Irish politics in general.

It isn’t outrageous to apply a principle that any body in receipt of public funds should only be given such funds when proper levels of governance are seen to be in place.

Among such standards should be term limits for office holders, and the accepting the need for independent scruitiny as and when such situations arise.

Perp walk arrests and presenting evidence in public prior to a courtroom appearance certainly add to the sense of drama. It may strike us as strange. It does though have elements of honesty to it, in making justice seen to be done.

In Ireland our archaic libel laws prevent effective displays of public disgust being made. We are limited in those on whom we can heap social oppobrium.

Politicians, obviously, are fair game. Civil servants as a generic group also seem open to disdain. Business people, as individuals, seem uniquely to possess a right to protect their good names.

When these great and good donate or are seen to participate in a public good, the ability to question their character or motivation recedes further.

If the Minister who oscillates between Transport and Sport, can succeed in changing this culture then he should be rewarded.

Perhaps RTÉ could do so by resurrecting its long running, now long forgotten radio serial, with a new cast of characters. Let’s have ‘The Hickeys of Castle Ross’.

Dan Boyle is a former Green Party TD and Senator. Follow Dan on Twitter: @sendboyle

Rollingnews

From top: Ming Flannely (left) and Aisling Gregg after receiving their Leaving Cert results in Loreto College, Dublin yesterday; Dan Boyle

We should be bringing an end to the idea that The Leaving Certificate is an ending to a type of education, or to education itself.

Dan Boyle writes:

The Leaving Certificate is a peculiarly Irish construction. Our equivalent of the US High School diploma, England’s A levels or France’s Baccalaureate. Its title, its conjugation of the verb ‘to leave’, implies an away with you attitude to those taking part.

At its most benign it’s about the leaving of second level schooling. With this, and because of grade inflation, there is the expectation that this should be followed by third level education.

Once The Leaving was the ticket into the world of work. There are a few opportunities now that are open for our young people at this stage of their life.

For much of the history of this State The Leaving took on a literal definition, as ten of thousands saw it as a rite of passage before leaving the country.

We badly need to look at what The Leaving of today is about. Skills can and should be acquired before The Leaving, and without it. What we used to call ‘trades’ are skills that should be reinstated into the education and training hierarchy.

My What If experience happened when I was 17 years old. I took a civil service exam for the then Department of Post and Telegraphs. The job was called, I think, a Telegraphic Technician. I passed and was offered a job at a very attractive starting wage of 100 punts per week.

I was all on for taking it but the Ma said no. I had to do The Leaving. Had I taken the position I imagine I would have had a less complicated, more secure, though less exciting life. Then again I may have fallen off the top of a pole.

When I was 18 I chose the local Regional Technical College (precursors of today’s Institutes of Technology) over an Arts course. Then you were also required to do a Matriculation exam to gain access to university. The two exams could be combined to produce the best result.

There is something to be said of going back to adapt what we used to do. We should gain access to third level through aptitude tests that better measure skills and knowledge, rather than the ability to regurgitate.

If third level is the ultimate destination, for most, should it be immediate? Informally, over the years, some have adopted the American habit of taking a year out. It isn’t a bad idea. Get the head straight. Learn about life as it actually is. Get a job.

I’m thinking that we should make it a requirement that no one should enter university directly from second level without a 12 month interval.

The real end we should be bringing an end to is this idea that The Leaving is an ending to a type of education, or to education itself. Life long education isn’t something that we should buy into to dip in and out of. It’s an expectation that should be required of all of us.

I was fortunate to be accepted on a Masters programme at University College Cork. I was given a place after my life/work experiences were taken into account over my previous academic endeavours. This practice seems to have only a toehold in Irish academic decision making. It should become an essential part of such decision making.

So, in summary, The Leaving isn’t an end in itself. It isn’t even an end to education. Life is what’s left.

Dan Boyle is a former Green Party TD and Senator. Follow Dan on Twitter: @sendboyle

From top: The first meeting of the Charity Regulatory Authority in 2014; Dan Boyle

The whole point of having regulation of the charity sector, is not only to achieve the best standards of governance, but also  to reduce the number of voluntary agencies engaged in similar activities

Dan Boyle writes:

There are two comments associated with Charlie McCreevy (our over esteemed former Finance Minister) that rankle with me. The first was his exhortation for us all to party on, to extend the ‘miracle’ that was the Celtic Tiger economy.

The second comment was his description of the charity/community/voluntary sector as ‘the poverty industry’.

With my own background in this sector it was a comment that succeeded in raising my hackles. Partially it was because I knew that, as criticism, it contained more than a grain of truth.

Most voluntary bodies, especially those dedicated towards meeting a social need, should have as an objective the goal of putting themselves out of business.

In Ireland, with our greater reliance on voluntary bodies to meet social needs, we seem to accept the biblical precept that the poor will always be with us.

None of this should avoid the realisation that it is the State which has created the vacuum, that has created this system of voluntary body led social service provision. More of our social services should be provided directly by the State, and operated to a standard found in the most progressive countries.

This wouldn’t eliminate the need for voluntary agencies. Advocacy is another, as important, element of the work undertaken by such groups. Through this work the community sector acts as ombudsmen, in seeing that the State properly fulfills its responsibilities.

In a fully functioning democracy there should be an appropriate level of State funding for this activity. Such funding should never be linked to avoiding criticism of the State.

Where we’ve also become lost is in applying a market/business model to these bodies. None should be inspired by the need to create or make profit. In particular senior management of charities should not see themselves as being entitled to the same bloated salaries found in the private sector.

This isn’t to say that effective management should be beyond them, or that metrics shouldn’t exist that measure success and failure in these organisations.

What should be put to bed is the idea that competition is needed between voluntary organisations which pursue similar goals.

The whole point of having regulation of the charity sector, is not only to achieve the best standards of governance, but also where necessary to reduce the number of voluntary agencies engaged in similar activities.

What we have now is a mess. A glut of organisations competing for public goodwill. A goodwill already severely tested by poor governance practices and sometimes greed of a small number of actors.

This has undermined the Ireland of the Meitheal, that already was being undermined by the rush to individualism (bringing about greater selfish behaviour) cheered on by Mr. McCreevy and his ilk.

We can’t keep keep sliding down this slippery slope. We are and we deserve better than this.

Dan Boyle is a former Green Party TD and Senator. Follow Dan on Twitter: @sendboyle

From top: John Gormley in Summer, 2010 ; Dan Boyle

Politics and Journalism rarely find the relationship that is needed to bring about the best standards of accountability.

Especially in August

Dan Boyle writes:

August. That awkward month when the media shows its painfully incestuous relationship with political activity of any type to provide it with copy. Left instead with the option of cold turkey, media sources create stories to fill the void.

For the most part silly season stories are harmless with readers/listeners/viewers in on the deceit that such stories are more contrived than usual. Unless you are part of such stories they tend to be quite entertaining.

When you become the story, in the absence of more substantive narratives, it becomes more difficult to escape the perception that gets created.

By way of example I give you the White Van crisis of 2010. Within the Department of the Environment it was decided by civil servants that the motor tax renewal form should be redesigned.

Part of the redesign was to re-emphasise the section on the taxing of commercial vans, vehicles subject to a lower level of tax. The reason for the lower tax has been to restrict the use of these vehicles from carrying passengers.

The emphasis on the new tax form was seized on by a news story claiming this as a Green Party initiative. This created an hysteria where the bringing of children to school or helping an elderly parent to collect their pension was being stopped by the meany greenies.

It was a classic case of facts getting in the end way of a good story. There was never any Green Party policy on the issue. John Gormley as the Minister concerned, gave no direction that a form should be changed at his behest.

Usual journalistic custom would be to seek corroborating quotes from those concerned. The beauty of silly season is that in looking for quotes from people who are on holiday who usually can’t respond. And so the stories get run anyway.

Silly season becomes a year long activity in the tabloid world. On occasion we see a crossover from journalists seeking to enter political life, a life they had usually sought to portray pretty cynically.

Good recent examples of this would be Michael Gove and Boris Johnson in the Brexit referendum. Journalistic skills help in defining subjects that can pique the public’s interest.

Hang upon this interest a known substantial prejudice, then repeat, and you will find a certain formula for success in politics.

Politics and Journalism rarely find the relationship that is needed to bring about the best standards of accountability.

Too many journalists become embedded with the political world that some want to be a part of. At the other extreme the more cynical of journalists have determined that politicians are a sub-species all of whom are inclined towards corruption.

The best of journalists avoid being spoon fed. They learn to differentiate between those who dissemble and those who wish to be honest. The best of politicians know the more they can be open and honest the less they are likely to be misrepresented.

Sadly we are nowhere near that place yet

Dan Boyle is a former Green Party TD and Senator. Follow Dan on Twitter: @sendboyle

From top: Protest outside Leinster House, 2016; Dan Boyle

Being unburdened by history and being uncaring about the future are just some of the benefits  of living in the ‘Us’ world.

Dan Boyle writes:

For the past ten years of my life I have been one of Them. I didn’t apply for membership and I don’t particularly want to be a member. It has been determined that this is who I am and this is where I should be.

It is only membership of the Irish branch of the global Them organisation, nevertheless, the sins of the many throughout the World are visited on we few.

Unlike the far more cool group, the Us organisation, we in Them are responsible for all that is bad or has gone wrong. Our foibles are all equivalent, equal to the worst transgressions that have ever been committed.

I long to be part of the Us group. Those whose accusations have greater weight when based on prejudice without needing to be in any way evidentially based. Facts about Them become facts through repetition.

The flaws of an Us member get to be judged differently. These are more sins of omission than commission. Context is all in the Us world. For their selfs at least.

Language is looser. Us people get to harangue Them losers at great length and with deep intensity. No epithet is out of bounds.

Consistency in word, thought or deed is not encouraged in the Us world. To be or become consistent is something of a heresy.

Logic is a pathetic shield that we in Them hide behind. The freedom to change what we say and what we believe is only the prerogative of those who belong with Us.

Being unburdened by history and being uncaring about the future are other hidden benefits of living in the Us world. In their world the counter factual explains everything.

A thesis doesn’t need to be challenged. If it exists it is believed. It becomes endorsed by others among Us who accept the truth it becomes.

As we in Them are responsible for all that is wrong, all that is required for Us to put things right, is to be the polar opposite of those who have brought wrong about.

The leaders of Us tell Us what they want to hear. Among Them there are those experts. Of whom there are too many. Of whose thoughts too much weight has been given. To whom too much attention has been made that has led Us down too many dark alleys.

For Us people there are no complex situations. There are no issues that cannot be resolved without the devising of an appropriate slogan. Solutions, like facts, become solved through the repetition of these mantras. It’s quite Zen like.

There is the option of being neither part of Us or Them. It is the saner option. The only downside is that the Us and Them groups share a mutual antipathy towards the Other. For both groups Other Wise is an oxymoron.

Maybe there is an Other way. A different way. A better way. For those who dream it is to be hoped that it may soon become Thus.

Dan Boyle is a former Green Party TD and Senator. Follow Dan on Twitter: @sendboyle

Rollingnews

From top: UK Labour Party leader  Jermey Corbyn; Dan Boyle

Whoever wins its leadership contest will likely be the last British Labour Party leader as we have known it.

Dan Boyle writes:

The British Labour Party is probably already dead. Its leadership contest is less a battle for the party’s soul than a picking over of its corpse.

The DNA of all political movements contain the genes of their eventual self destruction. With the British Labour Party we are sadly watching these genes take effect.

While most political parties are coalitions, the British Labour Party of today has become the battlefield for competing parties within their party.

The rot set in after the death of the then leader, John Smith, in 1994. In all probability Smith would have won the 1997 election from the centre left, without the Blairite Tory lite makeover that followed.

Tony Blair, in turn, was the most electorally successful Labour leader ever. It was success gained through skilful media management. He possessed a toothy charm, mixed with an eruditeness, and an affectation of managerial competence that persuaded enough of the electorate that he and Labour were electable.

His administrations were not without policy achievements but sadly they were based on policy goals centred on keeping the middle class happy whilst ignoring Labour’s working class support.

Over this hung and will linger the shadow of Iraq. The messianic zeal which Blair pursued his crusade, indifferent to his party, parliament and ultimately the British people, should put pay to his style of politics.

There are those in Labour today who continue to believe otherwise. They style themselves the ‘Progress’ group. Their credo is to never really challenge the status quo, but to gently nudge it towards a preferred change of emphasis.

Its mirror image is the ‘Momentum’ group which sees Jeremy Corbyn as its saviour. This group is clear in what it opposes. In what it opposes there much that many among the general public are also against. Where it falls down is that it is less clear in what it is it proposes.

In Jeremy Corbyn this group seems to have a perfect exponent. To all intents a decent man who is consistent in his beliefs. There is no doubt either that he has been entirely unfairly treated by what passes for a free press in Britain.

Where he has failed and seems unlikely to succeed, is that he lacks genuine leadership ability. He cannot persuade those who do not share his value system nor those who haven’t had his experiences.

The path least travelled by both these parties within this party will continued to be ignored.

The future for socialism and social democracy is not to be compliant nor is it to be dogmatic. Politics does involve compromise but it is on the when not the what. Not the how.

Whoever wins its leadership contest will likely be the last British Labour Party leader as we have known it.

The party has achieved much in its history. There is much that can be celebrated in those achievements. However it is no longer a coherent coalition of interests. Without such coherence it is difficult to see what relevance it will continue to have.

In a country seemingly intent on retreating into a cartoon version of its past as a means of succour, this is tragic.

Europe, as much as the UK, requires a strong, progressive political party in Britain. The difficulty is, like the wise Kerryman giving directions, they shouldn’t be starting from here.

Dan Boyle is a former Green Party TD and Senator. Follow Dan on Twitter: @sendboyle

Pic: Getty

From top: Irish Water protest last year; Dan Boyle

The author admits defeat to those who have ‘succeeded in what passes for politics these days’ whose narrative is that all can be blamed on others

Dan Boyle writes:

The liberal commentariat (of which I aspire to be part) has been struggling with the state of chassis that is modern politics today.

Attempts have been made to attach the sobriquet ‘Post-Politics’ to the situation. Sometimes with a greater sense of hopelessness the term ‘Post-Truth’ has been applied.

It may be that it has ever been thus, that the real social contract that exists between those voting and those representing isn’t based on idealism, but is held together through nod and winkery that those most successful at politics show the ability to look after themselves first, and that that is all right just as long as most of the rest of us are being looked after as well.

Politics today, if it ever was, is not about what is just and fair. It’s about the saying the right things, to be heard in the right way, by the right people at the right time.

I bend towards the philosophical here, as I have had the realisation that it has been twenty five years since I was first elected to Cork City Council.

It has been a privilege to have participated, to have been chosen, to have served. It also has been, and continues to be, a fascination to engage. Even with those with their checklists who see my engagement as a portal to place onto me the woes of society.

My skin remains the least dense part of me. Nevertheless I’m not going to start indulging in confession for wrongs I don’t believe I’ve committed, or for reversing events that were beyond me then.

The regrets I have are strictly of a personal nature. In choosing what I chose and doing what I did I compromised my family. A career with better definition and certainty would have allowed me to play my family role better than I have.

Where I will admit defeat is to those who have succeeded in what passes for politics these days.

Those who have created a world where from positions of privilege they have portrayed themselves as victims. Those whose narrative is that all can be blamed on others.

Those who have contrived the notion that everything is paid for already. Those who believe that responsibility is always their’s never our’s. A world of truthiness and hopeitude.

The trouble with democracy is that it is a very messy business. It is proven to be one of the least efficient methods of making decisions. It is so easy to engineer and to manipulate. Pander to that prejudice. Never challenge it. These are my people I must follow them, the pathetic yet effective catch cry.

And yet the rights to be wrong, to be indifferent, to be selfish, to be wasteful, to be incompetent are intrinsic to democracy.

At best it could be that these storm clouds will eventually pass. Then those of us who believe in idealism might come out to play again. If only to be able to regain control of the asylum.

Dan Boyle is a former Green Party TD and Senator. Follow Dan on Twitter: @sendboyle

Pic: Ruairi McKiernan

From top: turf cutting in Connemara, 1960s by John Hinde; Dan Boyle

By 1995, 99% of Irish raised bogs had disappeared.

In the period since, more than one third of the remaining one per cent has been lost.

Dan Boyle writes:

A lost family photograph of ours evokes a particular memory for me. I was about four years of age standing next to my grandfather, who was standing next to his donkey, which had baskets on either side full of turf.

It looked for all the world like a John Hinde postcard depicting an over romanticised view of Ireland, which if it ever existed certainly doesn’t exist now. My grandfather would have cut turf by hand. That Ireland is certainly dead and gone.

Or at least it should be.

Raised bogs are only small proportion of the bogs that exist in Ireland, those chosen for protection a smaller number again.

Bearing in mind that it takes ten thousand years to create a bog, it is harrowing to learn that by 1995, 99% of Irish raised bogs had disappeared. In the period since, more than one third of the remaining one per cent has been lost.

It has been almost 30 years since an EU initiative on conservation has taken root in Ireland. The EU Habitats Directive was first proposed in 1988 being fully adopted in 1992.

In Ireland it wouldn’t be incorporated into Irish law until 1997 under legislation moved by now President, then Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Michael D. Higgins. This delay was followed by further delays in implementation.

Rural pressure groups argued that the Habitats Directive was being applied too stringently. Successive governments reacted to this pressure by stalling on implementing the legislation.

Slowly, too slowly, Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) began to be defined. However in typical indecisive Irish government action, derogations have been applied to many of these SACs since 1997.

Raised bogs are but a small component of the SACs that have been selected. Together their area is about 10,000 hectares.  This represents about 5% of the turf available for cutting. Other raised bogs have been given less stringent Natural Heritage Area (NHA) status.

A campaign centred around the ‘right’ of not applying the Habitats Directive to raised bogs gathered momentum.

Based on the precept that what always has been done should always be done, and the underlying unstated theme that everything that happens in rural Ireland is intrinsically right, the campaign demonised everyone who denied the right to continue to cut turf on raised bogs – The EU Commission, several Ministers for the Environment and later for Heritage, and more viciously officers of the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS).

The ugliness of the illegal turf cutting campaign is most particularly felt by NPWS officers, a small group of people who have had inadequate State support.

While some of the raised bogs are owned by those who are protesting against the SAC designation most bogs are on already publicly owned land where the turf cutters have had turbury rights – the right to cut turf on public land. A right extinguished once conservation is introduced.

In 2010 as then Minister for the Environment, John Gormley ended the derogation on many of the raised bog sites, alongside a phased timetable for ending all derogations.

As a Green Minister for the Environment he was already being demonised by the turf-cutting lobby. Ultimately this action has not been successful as the compensating factors – financial and relocation have been rebuffed by the turf cutting lobby.

The issue has been used skilfully and successfully by Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan, and his successor Michael Fitzmaurice, to bring about their election to Dáil Éireann.

The name of the lobby promoting this campaign  – The Turf Cutters and Contractors Association – seems to be the most honest thing about them.

Supporting illegal turf cutting in micro terms causes environmental risks in the form of compromised drainage, and at a macro level removes the potential of untouched raised bogs operating as important carbon sinks, such support is incompatible with being an environmentalist.

Big Brother happens to be the good guy in this case. It is about heritage not greed.

What’s most surprising is the most reasoned sentiments on the issue that has been already been far too prolonged, have been made by the European Commission.

This is an issue where the cliché of ‘stop digging’ has a literal meaning.

Dan Boyle is a former Green Party TD and Senator. Follow Dan on Twitter: @sendboyle