Village Dies

Who can be surprised by the announcement - reported in today’s Irish times - that Village Magazine is to cease publication?

Village went intro terminal decline pretty quickly. From the start the mag made losses that were as impressive as its copy was unimpressive. True there were a handful of strong journos at times - Justine McCarthy and Browne himself (though personally I find much of his output in recent years has been tedious, incoherent, lightweight given his stature, and often irritating).

Early last year when McCarthy’s exit was announced and when the magazine switched from weekly to monthly, it became only a matter of time, and I personally marvelled that Browne had continued to publish it. Incidentally McCarthy moved to the Tribune where, she was “offered a real journalists Salary as well as regular working hours”, jibbed Phoenix.

Even after becoming monthly, the mag struggled to fill pages, and it was always padded out with inane items like the boring two page ’state of the world’ map that became a regular filler. Then it added items on science and nature (this was Ireland’s political monthly remember).

Occasionally there was a reasonable splash on the government and the coverage of Bertie’s finances was thorough and convincing. But overall the Village remained little more than a vehicle for Browne to vent his own spleen against his usual bugbears - the last puff of which was his rant on Lisbon.

I stopped buying buying Village quite a while back. It just became so empty ( it should be added that it’s product values weren’t exactly a pull either, with chunky graphics, a very early 90s feel to layout, and bewildering mixes of colour ) If there is anything to lament about the death of Village it is that Ireland seems incapable of sustaining anything like a real political magazine that can retain talented journalists, conduct in depth investigations of political life, and present us with more penetrating analysis than can be provided by the Newspaper.

The Free Fees Fantasy

Here we go again with another round of debate on third level fees. And again we all climb back into our ideological boxes. Free fees are fair because education should be free to all, scream the egalitarian idealists, or at least those who made a politicial stroke out of free fees. Too right, scream the rich and upper middle class, who happen to benefit most from the largesse. We already pay our taxes, they continue, and higher taxes than the poor. No, cry those for whom individual responsibility is the supreme virtue, we should all have to pay, if we pay the price, we know the value. In the end, the politicians look at the voting numbers and decide to leave it all as it is.

And so we are for the forseeable future stuck with the absurdity of free fees. It is absurd because we live in a time when all kinds of forces have made it extremely difficult for governments to argue the case for higher spending - even if they wanted to! We lived through an unprecidented boom in Ireland, and coming from a low base we saw absolute spending figures grow rapidly on education, health, and other services, such as transport. yet we remain at or below, mostly below, OECD averages in all of these areas. And let's face it, in reality, the boom is over, and even if we return to sustainable growth, our per capita spend on education and health is not going to rise rapidly any time soon. That leaves us with the reality that our current per capita education spend is going to stay where it is. Given the shortage of government cash then, it is utterly absurd for the state to pay for expensive higher education for children of the rich ( for whom our country is configured to favour in so many other ways already ). We simply cannot afford it.

Meanwhile reality gnaws at us from another direciton. It is this: our universities are relatively low in international rankings and that position is likely to decline. If indeed we are serious about hooking in to a global knowledge economy, and frankly, for a small open economy, there is little option, we need to push our universities up the rankings. This does not mean that we are going to compete with Oxford or Harvard. The elite universities are a class apart and we don't have to worry about them. What we need to do is to be as good as the plain ordinary universities in Europe or the US. I'm thinking of say matching the University of Helsinki, or Oslo, or some of the mid ranking State universities in the US. (The only Irish University which features in these lists is Trinity, which does pretty well on the THES listing at about 53, and on the Shanghai Listing at between 200-300) This cannot be done without vastly greater funding to build up world class facilities, to attract top academics, and to fund pioneering research programs.

How do we get that vastly increased funding? First, by abandoning our entrenched positions and examing the reality of Irish third and fourth level education and asking where we need to go. For funding we need to think of flexible and innovative ways of raising money. We need to pull industry into the sector far tighter. Industry in Ireland, including the multinationals, simply point the finger at government. "We don't have enough high quality graduates". "People are deserting science". If so, industry too needs to get stuck in. They need to work with government - not in a token way, but in long term partnerships, to turn things around.

But there are other options. Fees cannot be ruled out (Actually I believe that the abolition of fees was a terribly regressive move, though I acknowledge that the old means tested system was chronically abused and deeply unfair to PAYE workers) We need to come up with a fair and sensible way of promoting university attendance among lower earning families. But grants, graduate taxes, scholarships, and student loans are all options. Perhaps we also need to foster a culture of philanthropy and of the university as a place which launches a person on their path to prosperity. In this way, alumni might be persuaded to pay something back afterwards. The universities too need more autonomy - to raise funds themselves like businesses.

Some fear the introduction of business practices in University. But there is nothing to fear if the sector, government, and business make clear goals and objectives together and come up with solutions which match our economic and yes, social goals. This means that history and Irish language don't need to disappear. The American university system is a complex mix of public, private and with a fair dose of market forces. It is not ideal and is elitist and too expensive for many students. But it demonstrates that its mix doesn't mean the death of humanities or the end of studies which don't feed directly to the economy. American universities are pioneers in anthropology, geology, literature. There is nothing to fear by borrowing some of the things they have done to become world class.

Our university sector has been transformed over the last 15 years. When I began in UCG (NUIG) in 1991 I arrived at a campus that was chronically underfunded. Buildings were overcrowded and decrepit. Class sizes in some cases were horrendous - students crammed into the isles in theatres. Facilities were from the 70s - our engineering facility had clapped out mainframes, a handful of groaning PCs, and old poorly equiped labs. There were many prefabs. The library was pathetic. Since then whole new buildings have sprung up - a new IT wing (god bless them), a brand new Irish language centre, a new engineering building, a new millenium arts wing, a brand new sports centre, etc.

All of this was necessary and is welcome, but it brought NUIG from the 70s to the 90s. But that push in our sector stagnated around 2003/2004 and funding was again cut. Since then there has been a constant battle by university heads to re-ignite the funding debate, but each time we get drawn in to the fees quagmire and ferociously entrenched positions. Sadly we will squander the great progress made unless we open up our minds again and accept that we live in a time when complex and innovate solutions are required. We also need to realise that we cannot continue to live in the fantasy where we crave a top class university sector but refuse to pay for it. We seem to want first rate eductation, but no one wants to pay - not students, not the tax payer, not business. The first challenge is to shatter this fantasy and to face reality.

Tomaltach ar Saoire: Tomaltach takes a break

Well, Tomaltach is set to head off on holiers with Bean Thomaltaigh agus Mac Thomaltaigh tomorrow!

It feels likes an age since I've had a real holiday, but it's only been two years. Last holiday was a lovely trip around Andalucia in 2006. Last year my annual leave was used for a very different purpose - to take time off for the birth of our son, Mac Thomaltaigh. That was a wonderful experience, but doesn't count as a holiday I'm afraid. I've had a couple of trips abroad since - but they were with work and again, not exactly a holiday.

So I'm really looking forward to our little trip dans la Vendée. I find the sense of excitement and expectation of heading on holiday is a huge part of its value! I'm genuinely excited about setting off tomorrow - though in funny way, since I don't particularly enjoy air travel (who does these days). But still the sense of voyage - even if this one is modest in scope - is always a bit of a thrill. In some ways I hope I don't get more of an adventure than I'd like - this of course is our first time travelling with Mac Thomaltaigh.

And so this week was our first time to pack for going away with a young child. Oh how life has changed. First, no more last minute packing. Worse, no more 'carrying light'. No matter how you compress it, you need bottles and a few toys and lots of clothes and a million bits and pieces. Then there's the push chair. I reckon it at least doubles the load - and almost the cost! But such are the joys!

So while on previous holidays we always liked to travel around, explore and area, do some trekking, check out some monuments, explore the nooks and off-beaten tracks of cities, this time it'll be a more settled affair. A rened house and stay put - perhaps we'll take a couple of 1/2 day trips to look around.

Ok, a change, but I'm kind of looking forward to it. I've packed a couple of books and might buy a few french books while there. And there should be ample time to sit back and read at our leisure. If the weather is bad (and the Vendée is changeable enough) - the book can be washed down with a beer, or if its hot, a nice rosé. And hopefully we'll manage to dine out a few times.

Here's the master plan: for the first week we will be accompanied by my wife's brother and law, his wife, and their one year old. For the second week, my parents arrive. The extra hands should give everyone a chance to break away a bit and do what they like, and I hope that includes a couple of fine meals and a bottle or two of the good stuff.

Cheap mé ar dtús go dtiocfadh liom mo chuid francaise a chleachtadh, ach sílim go mbeidh cuid mhaith béarlóirí thart faoin trá agus faoin tsráidbhaile. Mar sin féin, is cinnte go mbeidh orainn roinnt mhaith rudaí a shocrú agus mar sin de. Is breá liomsa an teanga sin a labhairt mar bhí sí ar bharr mo theanga agam nuair a bhí cónaí orm sa Fhrainc. Tagann meirg ar do chumas labhartha i dteanga nach labhrann tú go minic. Is annamh a fhaighim seans é sin a dhéanamh ar na laetha seo.

An rud is tábhachtaí ar saoire - dó scíth a ligint. Le go nglanfaidh tú imní an tsaoil amach as d'intinn ar fad. Bíonn deis agat macnamh a dhéanamh ar do shaol féin agus breathnú ar an chaoi a bhfuil cúrsaí ag titim amach. Tá súil as Dia agam go n-éireoidh liom na rudaí fíorthábhachtacha seo a dhéanamh.

Rud eile - is deas an rud é roinnt mhaith ama a chaitheamh i gcuideachta do chlainne agus do mhuintire gan aon bhrú ama a bheith ort nó brú intinne. Is iontach an chaoi a gcuireann an obair isteach ar shaol an duine. Cuireann an obair sriain ar do shaol ar fad, agus cuireann sin isteach ort ar an iliomad bealaí. Is deas agus is pleisiúrtha briseadh ón tsriain sin anois agus arís.

Sin a bhfuil, beidh mé ar ais is dócha faoi cheann coicíse nó mar sin.

The Right to Whip and be Whipped

I was delighted that Formula One boss, Max Mosley, won his case against the News of the World who paid one of his prostitutes to secretly film one of their orgies. The paper ran the headline "F1 boss has sick Nazi orgy with 5 hookers". Mosley sued the paper for invasion of privacy. The paper argued the exposé was in the public interest.

Mosley had hired 5 prostitutes for a sadomasochistic orgy. But the court found there was no evidence for the allegation of Nazi undertones. More importantly it ruled that the public interest was not served by this severe invasion of the man's private life.

The reason I'm delighted is that this is a slap in the face to the cheap, sordid, kiss and tell sleaze that has become the stock in trade of British tabloids.

I watched John Snow interview a legal guy from the News of the World. The guy from the paper was seething at this judgement. It was just so beautitful and satisfying to see him frothing at the mouth. He kept on repeating that the public ought to know about Mosley's "Dark Secret Vice". Really? Snow asked that, since the court found that there were no Nazi overtones, why should the public know about this mans sex life? Again, the answer was, when it comes to the "rich, the influential, or the powerful" we ought to know if they have a "Dark Secret Vice". Well, snow asked, if we ought to know about the sex life of the rich and influential, should we know what the editor of the News of the World gets up to? Pause. Or it's senior legals? Pause, and then "the editor perhaps, but not me" (Ooops, I hope that hooker last night wasn't filming). You could hear the scratches from the bottom of the barrel.

The News of the World guy went on then to complain about the curtailment of freedom of speech creeping into Britain from Strasbourg. He was referring to the protection of privacy which is enshrined in the European convention on Human rights, which Britain signed in 1998. The convention doesn't provide an absolute right to privacy, but, basically, specifies that privacy should be protected unless there are genuine public interest concerns.

Let's be clear: freedom of speech is vital, and the function of the press in investigating matters of public interest is essential to democracy. But the interesting thing here is that the British court looked at the various provisions, took into account the European convention and made a judgement that is both fair and sensible. And the court explicitly stated that it believes its ruling will not curb the power of the press to conduct its work in matters of genuine public interest.

All said, a sound ruling. And just so great to see the vile, despicable, and debased rubbish that is the British tabloid, getting what it deserves: a whipping.

No to Lisbon .. or something

I just took a brief look at the eurobarometer surveys taken after the referenda on the constitutional Treaty in France, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Spain. The first thing I noticed was the difference between their reasons for voting No and the reasons Ireland voted down Lisbon. The top reasons in the Irish case, according to the eurobarometer, were:

Ireland ( No 54 % / Yes 46%)
1. Not enough info
2. Protect Irish Identity
3. Protect Neutrality
4. Do not trust our politicians
5. Retain commissioner
6. Protect our low tax


For France (No 54% / Yes 46% )
1.Economic situation in France / Jobs / Relocation
2.High unemployment in France
3.Economically, the text is too liberal
4.Opposes the President and Parliament of France
5.Not social enough

For Luxembourg (Yes 56.5% / No 43.5%)
1.Employment / Relocation
2.Economic situation in Luxembourg
3.Not social enough
4.Goes too far too quickly
5.I oppose Turkish entry
6.Too complex
7.lack of info

I added 5 and 6 here because the percentages of respondants who mentioned these remained high, at 17% for both.

Netherlands ( No 61.6% / Yes 38.4% )
1.Lack of information
2.Loss of sovereignty
3.Opposes national government and parties
4.EU too expensive
5.I am against integration

Spain ( Yes 77% / No 23% )
Unfortunately the eurobarometer on Spain didn't give the reasons for voting No.

One thing that stands out is the predominance of economic issues in the French and Luxembourg results. Obviously the backdrop there was critical. The social / liberal issue came up in both of these countries as well. The social option wasn't presented to Irish voters, though there was an 'other' option and it was hit in 14% of all No responses. However, it is to be presumed that the drafters of the poll listed the 15 or so issues that were to the fore in the campaign. The Irish results stands out too for the importance of the lack of information. These polls are only a snapshot and of course other surveys with different methodology produce a different take. Nevertheless, it is safe to say that economic issues were highly important in France and the Luxembourg while they weren't in Ireland. The Commissioner issue became big in our campaign and it gets a mention - though both this and the tax were each only mentioned in 6% of responses. Commissioner aside, institutional issues don't feature that much anywhere.

You can go through as many permutations as you like, but the main reason I checked was to see if there was any commonality between the Irish No and the others. More specifically, I wondered if the other No voters were raising similar concerns to the Irish voters. And basically, the answer is no. The only real commonality I see is between the Irish and the Dutch case - where the top reason was lack of information. This was also significant in the spanish campaign in the sense that the low turnout (42%) was mainly due to lack of information.

The fact that economics was behind the French and Luxembourg votes too was interesting. Certainly in the French case their economic malaise was very hard to pin on the EU. Much of their problems are home grown.

Clearly there is a huge communication gap. The workings of the EU and its contribution to the plus and minus side in each country are poorly communicated and as a consequence poorly understood. True, bridging this gap won't be easy, but the issue needs to be addressed.

Incidentally the eurobarometer survey summary after Nice I had this to say about knowledge of the EU amoung Irish people :

"an index of knowledge of the European Union and its institutions shows a rather sorry
picture - 63 per cent score zero, 25 per cent score 1, 10 per cent score 2 and a mere 2
per cent score 3"


I wonder how much that is change!

Certainly, it is very hard to have a debate about changes to EU institutions and policies if you don't know much about them to begin with.

Aid in Africa

Kevin Myres has written another article which has caused a bit of stir. This time on Africa. Myres laments that aid to Africa has only allowed its population of miserables to multiply and propped up several vile regimes in the process. The Indo letters page was bombarded. Then in today’s Irish Times Bryan Mukandi from Zimbabwe expresses his shock and horror at what Myers had written.

The reaction on the Indo letters page to Myres’ piece tells us two things. First, people still care about Africa. And second, many share Mr. Myres frustration and despair.

Given the overall record in Sub-saharan Africa since the withdrawal of the colonial powers between the 50s and the 80s, it is understandable that many people have given up hope. People in rich countries can feel betrayed too, when a country they have supported and was making progress is suddenly swept back to square one by another coup d’état. Sometimes it all seems so futile.

Yet I find it disheartening that the debate on Africa has taken on a kind of fatalism. Ah, sure it’s the Dark Continent, a basket case. This attitude misses the fact that Africa is huge and varied and that some parts are making progress while others are not. Last month, for example, a World Bank report found than democracy in Botswana continues to mature and that its political leaders have led it from being one of the poorest in Africa at independence to being at the top end of middle income countries now. Botswana proves that Africa is not condemned to deplorable governance and endless misery.

We often hear about African countries closing ranks. Sadly that is often the case. But nuances are emerging. For example, Kenya’s prime minister Raila Odinga recently spoke out against Mugabe, but there too internal political games might well be at play. The reality behind this is complex. The African experience of Western colonialism – which was so recent and brutal – has shaped a particular world view. Whether we like it or not, the world looks very different to African leaders. There is a fundamental ideological spit which prevents any real dialogue from taking place. Having said that, it seems undeniable that a gradual willingness on the part of moderate African leaders to crticise brutal regimes would be a vital step forward for the continent.

Aid too is a complex issue and it appears that many economists doubt its long term value in terms of development. That said, in a situation of crisis, such as war, famine or epidemc, aid is nothing less than essential and those who would deny it for some ideological position do not possess a human heart. The other point about aid is that nowadays no-one is under the illusion that aid alone can bring Africa’s worst performers, or nations elsewhere for that matter, to where they need to be. In tandem with aid other measures are required – a consistent and agenda free diplomatic approach, strict management and oversight of aid programs, close co-operation with local initiatives on the ground, fairer international trade regimes, and perhaps, in worst case scenarios military intervention. Unfortunately these latter components are often missing or applied for the wrong reasons in the wrong way.

Before we explode in anger at Myers’ uncompromising and seemingly heartless words, we need to appreciate that his piece comes from the pen of seasoned polemicist. He has honed his arsenal – and when he fires the results can be devastating. But his job is not to educate or enlighten – merely to provoke. In that he succeeds brilliantly. I welcome his opening of the debate on Africa, though it’s unfortunate that Irish media remain silent on Africa until a controversial shot is fired. It would be a regrettable side effect of Myer’s piece if some readers swallowed his arguments to re-inforce their own prejudices. But that is the price of freedom of expression. In any case, this is an eddy of a breath of a puff, and doubtless the Irish media will let the subject of Afica drop as suddenly as it picked it up.

I digress, and I’d like to return to a few points in the article. Mr. Myres inadvertantly raises a crucial point. He pointed out that Japan, China, Poland, Germany, and others suffered horrendous catastophes, yet they found their way back to the path towards progress and prosperity. True, but here is the nub: these countries have a history and culture which is better adjusted to the requirements of a functioning, central government geared for progress. No system is a guarantee against calamity, but the absence of certain values and norms invite leaders to view the apparatus of state as a set of tools for personal advancement. This is a controversial view – and I would emphasise that my point about Africa having an unfortunate starting point is historico-cultural not racial. That should not need to be said, but unfortunately it does. Africa’s horrific experience of colonialism and its own cultural baggage left it poorly equiped to deal with the nightmare of the modernity it faced. Not only that, but it wasn’t even left alone to sort things out – the Cold war first, and a form of neo-colonial meddling now is anything but helpful. Darfur is one case, so too are the seeds of the ugly and shameful genocide in Rwanda. At home in the west so to speak, we are obsessed about the harsh effects of globalisation – farmers marching about WTO deals, credit crunch flowing across the face of the financial world like dominoes, outsourcing, offshoring and so on. Globalisation is harsh and volatile even for rich, robust democracies. Imagine how it is effecting the weakest players who are so poorly equiped to deal with it and who have little power in the global institutions to make any difference and where their interests are often bulldozen by those of the West.

Again to Myers’ comparison. China’s presence on the list signals that even where progress and prosperity are possible, democracy doesn’t necessarily follow. Africa teaches a similar lesson as the ongoing adventure in Iraq: nation building and democracy are not some kind of default settings that kick in when all else is cleared away. Like vulnerable seeds in the perpetually volatile soil of human nature, they require patience and constant care. When they wither, the only response is to replant, and replant again if necessary. And democracy is that peculiarly delicate plant that can only be grown and not transplanted.

If we work with Africans to help them build functioning societies and if we fail, they cannot walk away, and neither should we. We just replant, and try harder next time.

We keep our Commissioner and Revote

The following is my translation of an article in today's Le Monde about proposals to get another Irish referendum. It is quite interesting in the kind of manoevering it reveals and also there is an interesting little comment at the end about the way the commission is evolving into something less than desireable. The article was written by Arnaud Leparmentier

The reform of the European Commission is to be sacrificed on the altar of the Irish No to the Lisbon Treaty. It’s the likely direction for Europe, as Nicolas Sarkozy, incumbent president of the EU, meets the Irish prime minister, Brian Cowen in Dublin on Monday the 21^st July.

For some weeks now, the experts have been seeking an avenue to secure and Irish revote after the No on the 12^th June. The aim is to modify the text, without legal implications, to assure the Irish that their vote has been taken into account: it is out of the question to start the negotiations on a new treaty from scratch and to restart the ratification process in 27 other (sic) countries.

By careful rereading the legal experts have found a single avenue: the commission, even if it wasn’t central to the referendum campaign. As the No camp pointed out, the Irish will lose, like everyone else, their automatic right to appoint a commissioner in Brussels. The Nice Treaty, currently in effect, provides for a reduction of the number of commissioners once the total number reaches 27. That applies from 2009.

The Lisbon Treaty, however, offers an escape route: the reduction is postponed until 2014. Moreover, the treaty provides that the commission be composed of a number equal to two thirds the number of member states in the EU “unless the European Council unanimously agrees to modify this number”

The latter provides the margin for manoevre: the 27 can decide that the Commission will continue to be composed of one commissioner per country. The Irish will have the choice to make: it’s Lisbon and keep the Commissioner, or Nice will apply.

The Commission is Overcrowded

The No camp have always indicated they would oppose this kind of concession. To make the package more attractive, it is envisaged to issue a new declaration of the European Council which will restate the guarantees already given to Ireland in the entirety of the treaties: assurance that the EU will not be inolved in abortion, given in Maastricht in 1991; a guarantee of Irish neutrality, re-iterated as it happens after the first Irish No in 2001 to the treaty of Nice; a guarantee that fiscal matters will remain under unanimity.

These proposals could be debated at the Council in October and adopted in December. The Irish could therefore run another referendum, on the same day as the European elections in 2009 at the latest.

The Commission would be weakened by this compromise. It has now become overcrowded, especially since the commission president, José Manuel Barroso, has made “legislate less”* his motto. The commissioners have reduced responsibility, sometimes of a derisory nature, and less than those of the directors general over whom they have authority.

These measures, combined with the centralised management of Mr. Barroso, have eroded the special nature of the commission: the collegial character of its decisions. Gradually the commission is becoming a secretariat of the European Council of ministers, beset by haggling among nations instead of seeking a European optimum.

* Barroso adopted the theme "Légiférer moins pour légiférer mieux (Legislate less to legislate better)"