Draw Breath

I’m always a fan of Chekov’s blog (yes: I’m reading far far more than I’m writing!), but I am at times perplexed by his politics. I’m with him on the scepticism about nationalism in all its hues, but I’m confused about the manner in which he picks fights with his nationalist opponents. There is a huge gap between his more reflective comments on unionism and, in terms of political strategy, his comments on the Union. Compare for instance his considered and interesting post here with this strange, albeit short, post here.¹

I’m in a grouchy mood today, so I’ll focus on the kvetch.

Read more…

My guess is that this is the start of the next wave in Ireland’s recession. While our woes are partly down to American sub-prime and the new style of global crisis, we also have the classic bust to come. Make no mistake: the demise of construction firms hurts banks.

And a happy Glorious to you!

And on it goes.

As I said before, the free speech distraction is the last (and very often first) refuge of the non-thinking rogue. People in a public role seem to believe that all sorts of remarks are fine (as long as an imaginary friend is invoked) and that consequence-free public statements can be made if everyone magically knows that you are – just for that moment – engaged in an very private articulation of your views. Out loud. In public.

And then they can respond with shock at those terrible liberals looking to take their rights to say anything that's in their heads away. So to be clear: nobody is questioning Iris Robinson's general rights to free speech. They are questioning her utterences in the context of her role as a public representative. If Robinson finds it difficult to do her job without proclaiming her revulsion at the behaviour of people for whom she works, why doesn't she make her own life easier, ditch her public responsibilities and resign?

Also, this sort of behaviour is of course neither unique to the DUP nor to Northern Ireland. Just as a point of interest however, are those of us who live here going to have to get used to a yearly jamboree as the people our taxes pay for take an opportunity to peer into bedrooms and tut-tut lingeringly at all the carry-on?

One of those hidden problems was raised in yesterday's Northern Ireland Questions . Paul Goggins, Minister of State in the NIO, revealed that 30% of prisoners in Northern Ireland (or 59% of prisoner receptions according to the Northern Ireland Committee report (pdf, p.6) on the NI Prisons Service) that provoked the questions) are there for fine defaults. As some members pointed out, given the limited number of imprisonment options here, fine defaulters tend to get lumped in with more serious criminals, including in Maghaberry.

One of the most important issues surrounding imprisonment for fine defaults is the strange impact the policy has on women, especially regarding non-payment of television licences. Alistair MacDonald raised this during NI Questions but the Minister of State did not have figures to hand. Of the women in Hydebank Wood in 2006/7 (pdf, p.11), for instance, close on two thirds were there because of default either on fines for motoring offences or because of non-payment of television licences.

This problem created something of a stir in England and Wales in the 1990s. As this article by Christina Pantazis and David Gordon from 1997 points out, the BBC's TV Licensing regime has a deleterious effect on poor people, of whom single mothers and the elderly made up an increasing proportion from the 1980s onwards. Poor people are naturally the least likely to be able to pay a fine, are likely to be already in debt and are unlikely to be able to manage their finances in response to new demands.

What Pantazis and Gordon didn't point to was the shift in the BBC's enforcement regime when it outsourced to Capita . From what I heard at a conference last year, Capita got a bonus if they brought in a new licence (as did the officers if Wikipedia is to be believed). Since they called during the day they were more likely to find women at home (very likely poor women or single mums) and once they found someone without a licence they would offer to sell one (and procure that bonus). This gets anyone who can afford to pay the agent off out of the equation, leaving the poorest ending up in front of magistrates and then facing fines. And they tend disproportionately to be women.

In fact, in the mid 1990s fully 57% of women in prison in England and Wales were there because of a default on their TV licences.

Something had to and did give (as outlined here (pdf) with the introduction of various payment methods that moderated the doorstepping tactic and closer guidance to magistrates about matching the level of fines with the person's capacity to pay.

Strange thing is, if yesterdays NI Questions this shift doesn't seem to have been extended to Northern Ireland. We still may have a regime that locks up women to a disproportionate and, if the lessons of England and Wales are anything to go by, needless extent. In the words (pdf, p. 9) of Robin Masefield giving oral evidence to the NI committee, "we have tended to adopt the approach in Northern Ireland of the default being a period of custody, we actually have a significantly higher rate of fines being paid than England and Wales."

This, as Masefield says, cannot be right.

I've had a long-standing interest in (and affection for, as it happens), the muddled position of Irish citizens in the UK. Under the Ireland Act 1949 2 (1) (which regularised the relationship between the UK and the new Irish Republic as was), while Ireland is designated an independent state it was not classed as a foreign state. And, given this, as the British Nationality Act 1981 51 (4) has it, "'alien,' in relation to any time after commencement, means a person who is neither a Commonwealth citizen nor a British protected person nor a citizen of the Republic of Ireland."

This has been updated somewhat by the Good Friday Agreement (pdf), allowing for effective dual citizenship for people born in Northern Ireland with at least one British or Irish parent with indefinite leave to remain (the "Irish or British or both" bit being in Article 1 (vi) and the restriction to people born in NI etc being in Annex 2). To the best of my knowledge, previously Irish citizens in NI were given access to Westminster elections through the Ireland and British Nationality Acts. The GFA gives them a status that distinguishes them from Irish citizens born in the ROI.

Anyway, I read Lord Goldsmith's report on citizenship (pdf) last night and it's very interesting indeed. I think the people who, following the BBC and others, have focused on oaths of allegiance are in fact missing what is on the whole a well-considered and provocative document (with a good outline of the Common Travel Area on pages 25-26). Nothing beats reading the real thing…

One interesting element concerns Goldsmith's proposal that the right to vote in Westminster elections be restricted to UK citizens. The whole discussion of voting is on pages 74-76 of the report and is well worth reading in the beginning as a good outline of the normative argument for voting (or 'voting as sacrament' as Harry Brighouse called it on Crooked Timber last week). Essentially, Goldsmith argues that the 'blurring' of rights and duties between citizens and non-citizens has reduced the value of citizenship. Restricting the right to vote in Westminster elections to citizens is one component that will restore the value of British citizenship (all EU states allow other EU nationals to vote in local and European elections. Hence the focus here on Westminster polls).

The second part of the section relates to the unique position of Irish citizens. Goldsmith sets the issue and his proposed solution out in paragraphs 20 and 21, which I quote in full:

there are two particular issues in relation to Irish citizens. First, the Good Friday Agreement confirms the right of the people of Northern Ireland to take either British or Irish citizenship or both. Anyone who exercises their right under the Agreement to identify themselves as Irish and to take up Irish citizenship should not lose their right to vote in Westminster elections as a result of any change made to restrict voting rights to UK citizens. Hence it would be necessary to distinguish this group of Irish citizens from others. I have not been able to examine the different practical means of doing this but this would have to be part of further consideration of the issue. My proposal is dependent on finding a satisfactory means of distinguishing the two categories in a way that did not affect the position of those exercising rights under the Good Friday Agreement.

Secondly, Ireland is of course a member state of the EU as well. This means that Irish citizens would retain the voting rights that other citizens of EU member states have in the UK. Hence the extent of the change that I am proposing as it relates to Irish citizens is to restrict their right to vote in Westminster elections, while retaining their right to vote in European, local and devolved elections. Also, as I have said, the restriction of the right to vote in Westminster elections should be phased, so that no person who is already resident or registered to vote in the UK loses the right to vote.

So Goldsmith proposes phasing in a system where Irish citizens would have their current right to vote in Westminster elections removed. That said, people who exercise their right to identify themselves as Irish under the GFA and who take up Irish citizenship would not have the right to vote removed. At the very least, as Goldsmith says, this poses a practical dilemma. As I read it the question comes down to how one can to distinguish between Irish citizens born in NI and Irish citizens by virtue of ROI statutes without undermining the citizenship privileges of the former.

That is: how, practically speaking, can the distinction be made without placing an undue burden on Irish citizens born in Northern Ireland, by say asking for proof of birthplace? Can this be done without producing a barrier (compared to their fellow voters) on people voting in Westminster elections? Would this be solved if voting required possession of some sort of revamped I.D. card and how would that go down on the Falls? Would the Irish state respond by only allowing (assuming the distinction was possible) British citizens born in Northern Ireland a vote in the Republic?

Second and perhaps less importantly, if the state takes the route of sharpening that boundary between UK citizens and non-citizens, and Irish citizens born in NI are kept inside the UK citizenship fence, how will this emphasis on the UK-ness of the political act of voting sit with the comfort of NI's Irish citizens in taking part in the Westminster vote?

And that's without even thinking of the half a million odd people in the UK who were born in the Irish republic – by some degree the largest cohort born outside the UK. Although Goldsmith envisages a phasing in period so that nobody loses privileges they possess, if the stir caused by the 1981 British Nationality Act (as evidenced by this Seanad discussion) is anything to go by, there's going to be an interesting discussion about the position of the Irish in the UK in the next few years.

Personally, I would be sad to see the blurring between Irish and British nationality disappearing. Unacknowledged as it was for the most part, I thought it was the most accurate appraisal of our cultural and social ties. How strange that, just as the Irish take tentative steps to reconcile themselves with their British past (and present to a degree), the very British citizenship solution is ditched.

Update: I see Mick has more on this on Slugger and on CIF. There's also a few links and a discussion courtesy of Michael here.

Ah – so that's what's wrong with this place. Too much north/southery

It's just dawned on me that '…ery' words are to Northern Ireland hectoring what '…ism' words are to members of the Socialist Workers' Party. But is it possible to be a north/southeryist and thus be anathema on all fronts?

Mick Fealty has posted a reminder (for me anyway) that we're talking tomorrow as part of QUB's Institute of Irish Studies seminar series.¹ Although I'm going to be more of a respondent to Mick than a substantive speaker, I have been enjoying a quick read of some good scholarly pieces out there on deliberation. There's this interesting piece by Cass Sunstein from the Boston Review in 2001. I'm also struck by this special issue of Analyse & Kritik (that a colleague pointed me to) on trust and the internet. The issue includes a couple of pieces by Philip Pettit, who is always worth reading (which isn't by any means to detract from the other papers in the issue).

I've banged on (perhaps, looking back on it, in a rather ameteurish way) about politics and trust before, arguing that it's not sufficient that a consensus exist on ideas of justice across a society. If institutions are to work, it's just as important that people believe that their opponents will honour the commitments that they make. In other words, you need trust for institutions to work.

That said, although Pettit's scepticism about trust on the internet probably holds true regarding, say, commercial transactions, the thin nature of interaction online can have distinct advantages. It may well be, for instance, that the distance that characterises interaction on the internet is actually quite a good thing in a divided society. Put simply, you can hold conversations with people you would not meet in, um, three-dimensional society, especially on sites where repeat games can encourage good behaviour. The trust can actually come from the lack of face-to-face interaction.

Anyway, I've not totally decided what I'm going to say tomorrow since I want to see how I can best add to what Mick has to say, but it's likely in part to be along these lines.

Update: As it turned out, I didn't mention this stuff at all, but focused on challenging Mick's optimism on the discursive potential of blogs. I suggested first that we need to think carefully about what 'effective' might mean and second that a battle is coming where regulation of the internet will occur through the libel courts. I didn't really explain my position very well, especially on libel. Specifically, I'm interested in the disciplinary effects of libel on the population as a whole.

Still, Mick really brought the discussion to some interesting places. More to come on all this hopefully…

Update 2: Alan from Belfast, who comments below, also makes a good point here.

1. At 16:00 in Seminar Room 1, the Institute of Governance, 53-67 University Road (back).

Speaking of which, I see that Sarah Carey is delighted that Michael O'Leary is sticking it to the government by calling for an EGM over Aer Lingus's move from Shannon to Belfast. Sarah says that "I just LOVE him for taking this stance" so I think it's safe to say she's impressed!

Sadly, my capacity for love is more limited. Michael O'Leary has never knowingly undersold himself, but it's worth remembering that he doesn't personally own the shares to Aer Lingus and nor does he own Ryanair. He's an agent of the Ryanair shareholders and is under the same statutory duty as Aer Lingus's managers to maximise returns on their shares.

As I mentioned before, Ryanair's shareholders were not best pleased with the original Aer Lingus bid, so whatever O'Leary is up to now, he'd better make it count. My guess is that he's happy enough to have Aer Lingus flying into expensive Heathrow from Shannon where Ryanair has been competing with them successfully. He's most likely less delighted at the idea of them doing the same from Belfast when Ryanair is set to open new routes from Belfast City in October. I doubt Aer Lingus's decision was included in the Ryanair business model for Belfast.

So: what to do if you can't own your major competitor and stop them raining on your Northern Parade? And what do you do if your shareholders are wondering why you spent all of their money? Well, you do the next best thing: you perform a grandstanding wrecking job. PR and regional monopolisation all in one.

Welcome to the free market. 

Oh the joys of being an all-Ireland party! Marvellous to read two posts on the Sinn Féin site from the 7^th of August and one from the 13^th:

First we hear that:

"Sinn Féin West Belfast MLA Paul Maskey MLA has welcomed the Aer Lingus decision to base its new regional hub at Belfast International Airport.

Mr Maskey said:

"This is good news for local people who get new flights and hopefully cheaper flights."

and then, from Sinn Féin's Limerick representative, Maurice Quinlivan:

This decision on the Heathrow route if confirmed could prove very detrimental to our local economy and will make it difficult to attract tourism and future investment. Direct jobs will also be lost at the airport. We are a small island nation we need a national airline, one that will play a dynamic role in the national and local economy ensuring we have adequate cargo and freight routes as well.

Then there's Arthur Morgan TD:

“Fianna Fáil through its privatisation agenda has facilitated this financial loss to the country thus proving again that the privatisation of key public services and interests does not deliver better services, more jobs or a stronger economy."

So that's a clearly all-Ireland party line then.