Dan O'Brien and the late Conor Cruise O'Brien. A rather random association you might think. Where did that come out of? There's nothing linking them apart from a common surname and your humble aurhor putting them in the same sentence just there. And maybe the fact that they are both examples of Irish public 'intellectuals', albeit in different fields with differing levels of accomplishment who wrote in different times. But otherwise chalk and cheese.
Except for one very distinct aspect of the Cruiser's political philosophy with regards to matters Anglo-Irish. In reading some of economist Dan O'Brien's recent columns on the Brexit "Backstop", I intuitively knew that there was something I specifically didn't like about what I was reading but I couldn't quite put my finger on what it was. Then it hit me reading his latest article this morning; Dan O'Brien is basically channelling the Cruiser. That is, the writings of Dan O'Brien contain clearly identifiable elements of Cruiserology. I shall explain.
What is Cruiserology? One of the best essays I have read on the Cruiser is Barra O'Seaghdha's "The Celtic Tiger's Media Pundits" contained in the book Re-Inventing Ireland. There is a lot in the essay worth reading but one of the main takeaway points for me was a story on how a bad personal experience in either the late 60s or early 70s had a significant influence on Conor Cruise O'Brien's thinking on the National Question going forward. The Cruiser was in the North one day during the Troubles and ended up somehow getting beaten up by a group of Loyalists. O'Brien's general reaction to this was very unusual. Instead of being filled with a justified and quite rational anger against loyalism and its brutish violence, as you might expect, he paradoxically directed his indignation at Irish nationalism instead.
Crucially, this wasn't because he thought Irish nationalism was in the wrong and loyalism in the right. That didn't matter. Rather, because he perceived loyalism as being more violent and dangerous than nationalism, he quite literally and physically feared its backlash and believed it was up to nationalists to refrain from goading or provoking it in any way. When they didn't that made him fearful and angry at them. Effectively, British loyalism was something to be appeased out of a fear of its power. It didn't matter if it was right or wrong, but only that it could hurt us.
So where is the Cruiserology in Dan O'Brien's writings? Let's look at his latest piece. Today he writes that the "backstop chickens are coming home to roost". For him, the backstop is a gamble by the Irish government. And as the prospects of a No-Deal Brexit become more likely (though it is still unlikely overall in my view as the British are bluffing) Dan O'Brien sees the gamble as potentially failing. This view is deeply flawed for two reasons.
Firstly, leaving the Cruiserology aside for a moment, this is wrong on a purely factual basis. After Britain voted to leave the EU, British government policy sought early in the process to leave the customs union and the single market. The logical outcome of such a position, then, was that the 6 counties would, at some point, leave the customs union and the single market too. In such a case, you would have a scenario exactly the same as the appalling no Deal vista that O'Brien describes, where Ireland is forced to choose between economic access to Europe on one hand and an open peacful border on the other. The only difference is that by not having a backstop, you kick the can down the road on that decision. It may or may not be more orderly, we do not know. If the backstop is a gamble, then that is no more a gamble than fudging until a later date.
And that's assuming that Brexiteers would not have a found another excuse to threaten 'no deal' anyway. Afterall, up until the last week or so, the European Research Group viewed the backstop as just one problem among many with the Withdrawal Agreement.
I don't wish to reduce to this to a realist versus idealist debate because i don't see this distinction as valid. The Irish government have been realistic. They are also doing what is right. If right does not prevail because of uncontrollable factors, that doesn't mean they should become the object of blame. And by dispensing with any regard for moral idealism, Dan O'Brien is not being realistic. Because as Irish history shows, nothing moves people more than a sense of injustice.
Except for one very distinct aspect of the Cruiser's political philosophy with regards to matters Anglo-Irish. In reading some of economist Dan O'Brien's recent columns on the Brexit "Backstop", I intuitively knew that there was something I specifically didn't like about what I was reading but I couldn't quite put my finger on what it was. Then it hit me reading his latest article this morning; Dan O'Brien is basically channelling the Cruiser. That is, the writings of Dan O'Brien contain clearly identifiable elements of Cruiserology. I shall explain.
What is Cruiserology? One of the best essays I have read on the Cruiser is Barra O'Seaghdha's "The Celtic Tiger's Media Pundits" contained in the book Re-Inventing Ireland. There is a lot in the essay worth reading but one of the main takeaway points for me was a story on how a bad personal experience in either the late 60s or early 70s had a significant influence on Conor Cruise O'Brien's thinking on the National Question going forward. The Cruiser was in the North one day during the Troubles and ended up somehow getting beaten up by a group of Loyalists. O'Brien's general reaction to this was very unusual. Instead of being filled with a justified and quite rational anger against loyalism and its brutish violence, as you might expect, he paradoxically directed his indignation at Irish nationalism instead.
Crucially, this wasn't because he thought Irish nationalism was in the wrong and loyalism in the right. That didn't matter. Rather, because he perceived loyalism as being more violent and dangerous than nationalism, he quite literally and physically feared its backlash and believed it was up to nationalists to refrain from goading or provoking it in any way. When they didn't that made him fearful and angry at them. Effectively, British loyalism was something to be appeased out of a fear of its power. It didn't matter if it was right or wrong, but only that it could hurt us.
Firstly, leaving the Cruiserology aside for a moment, this is wrong on a purely factual basis. After Britain voted to leave the EU, British government policy sought early in the process to leave the customs union and the single market. The logical outcome of such a position, then, was that the 6 counties would, at some point, leave the customs union and the single market too. In such a case, you would have a scenario exactly the same as the appalling no Deal vista that O'Brien describes, where Ireland is forced to choose between economic access to Europe on one hand and an open peacful border on the other. The only difference is that by not having a backstop, you kick the can down the road on that decision. It may or may not be more orderly, we do not know. If the backstop is a gamble, then that is no more a gamble than fudging until a later date.
And that's assuming that Brexiteers would not have a found another excuse to threaten 'no deal' anyway. Afterall, up until the last week or so, the European Research Group viewed the backstop as just one problem among many with the Withdrawal Agreement.
Rather than creating this risk of a hard border, the backstop is a way of avoiding it. If there is no deal because of the backstop, then we are no worse than if we had a Withdrawal Agreement that paved the way for a British exit from the customs union and the single market, or indeed a crashout no-Deal because the ERG or the DUP found something else they didn't like. A withdrawal agreement without a backstop is just as bad as a backstop that could cause there to be no withdrawal agreement.
Secondly, there is something more disturbing about Dan O'Brien's approach. By reducing the conversation to one of pure realpolitik, games of chicken and gambles, we lose sight of the bigger moral picture here too. I know, very quaint. This is where the Cruiserology comes in. Basically, moral hazards don't matter to Dan O'Brien. It doesn't matter that the British have acted in bad faith by:
What only seems to matter is the end result. And so he sees the "Backstop" not first and foremost as something that the Irish government is morally right and even obliged to insist upon, but just as a move in a game that can only be evaluated by its economic consequences. It doesn't matter that the British are in the wrong, just that they can harm us significantly. The general gist of his anti-Backstop stance is a 'might is right' consequentialism seemingly triggered by fear, if not dubious loyalty, rather than any kind of moral clock.Secondly, there is something more disturbing about Dan O'Brien's approach. By reducing the conversation to one of pure realpolitik, games of chicken and gambles, we lose sight of the bigger moral picture here too. I know, very quaint. This is where the Cruiserology comes in. Basically, moral hazards don't matter to Dan O'Brien. It doesn't matter that the British have acted in bad faith by:
- Trying avoid a backstop, even though they are signatories of the Good Friday Agreement, the spirit of which a hard Brexit would violate
- Going back on a previous commitment to observe the backstop, a commitment given in response to EU/Irish concessions
- Allowing the DUP, a minority party in the North, to use a fortuitous position to hold the process to ransom
I don't wish to reduce to this to a realist versus idealist debate because i don't see this distinction as valid. The Irish government have been realistic. They are also doing what is right. If right does not prevail because of uncontrollable factors, that doesn't mean they should become the object of blame. And by dispensing with any regard for moral idealism, Dan O'Brien is not being realistic. Because as Irish history shows, nothing moves people more than a sense of injustice.
No comments:
Post a Comment