2017 was one of the most exciting year ends for politics in the Republic in recent memory. In Late November, the fallout from the Sergeant McCabe drama reached its crescendo which led to an incredible game of brinkmanship between Leo Varadkar and Michael Martin. Initially, Fianna Fail went for blood and when Leo publicly backed Frances Fitzgerald it seemed the government’s confidence and supply was teetering on the edge of a political precipice.

An election at that time would have been very, very tight and could have gone either way. Michael Martin had publicly announced that he would not enter coalition with Sinn Fein but I think if the numbers had been right at that time, it could well have happened.

I think it was ultimately fortunate for Fine Gael that two further incriminatory emails were found that realistically made Frances Fitzgerald’s position untenable. While Fine Gael maintained their public position that her resignation was regrettable and unfair, I’m sure there were some sighs of relief around Fine Gael HQ. In Leo’s words;

“So, it is with deep regret that I have accepted her resignation. It is my strong view that a good woman is leaving office without getting a full and fair hearing.”
 
As I wrote about then, the Brexit talks could not have come at a better time for Fine Gael, in the direct aftermath of the aforementioned scandal. The unequivocal backing given to the Irish government allowed Leo Varadkar to be bullish and stand firm on the long held Irish positions. It played very well with the Irish public and was a change from the cautious approach of Enda Kenny who, at times, has been perceived as a lap dog of the European leaders.

By the time an agreement was finally reached that accommodated all sides and allowed the talks to proceed to Phase Two, Fine Gael had already enjoyed a boost in popularity which was reflected in the polls at the time.  They reached 36% in an Ipsos MRBI/Irish Times, their highest in over two years. It definitely allowed Fine Gael to finish the year on a high and gave the opposition parties plenty of food for thought.

So far in 2018, the public’s focus has shifted to more local issues with healthcare and housing back on the agenda. In these areas, Fina Gael have not performed as well as could be expected and it offers opportunities for both Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein to challenge current government policies and offer alternatives. As always, in Fianna Fail’s case it is a little more challenging as they are propping up the government through the C&S agreement.

Michael Martin has done a decent job over the last eighteen months of differentiating Fianna Fail’s position from those of Fine Gael, despite being complicit in any piece of legislation that has been passed. I have mentioned already that it was very difficult to do so in Brexit talks as the public were quite united behind Leo Varadkar, here even Sinn Fein’s criticism of the government approach was muted. When the talks resume in March, Fianna Fail will again struggle for relevancy.

The Eight Amendment debate has really captured the media’s attention currently. It has probably overtaken healthcare and housing for many as the key issue facing the parties today. While no referendum has currently been set, the debate about what is on the ballot paper and who supports what is already raging.
Sinn Fein as a party have come out quite strongly for a replace motion that, at the very least, makes changes to the current wording and offers more rights to women. There have been dissidents to this policy, most notably Peader Tiobin in Meath West.

Fine Gael TD’s have mostly come out in favour of some sort of repeal or replace motion. Interestingly, Varadkar has not publicly stated his position yet. It would be a political bombshell if he came out in favour of keeping the Eight amendment and could even put his position as party leader in doubt. I believe he will offer a very nuanced opinion soon, that gives him enough room to manoeuvre without totally alienating the ardent repealers in his party, with the likes of Kate O’Connell making passionate speeches against it recently with memorable quotes like;

“It is when we have been at our most Catholic in Ireland that we have been at our least Christian,….Irish women were quite literally enslaved in an act of church and State collusion that can be honestly characterised as nothing other than sexual apartheid,…….Their babies were sold like puppies to foreign homes or enslaved in industrial schools to be preyed upon by those in power wielding authority”
 
However, Fianna Fail are the most intriguing party to analyse on this issue. At the Ard Fheis last October, the party came out quite strongly against repealing the Eight Amendment. With estimates of the no repeal motion being passed by a ratio of 5/6 to 1, it is incredible that Michael Martin has now publicly backed repealing the Eight and going as far as to back abortion on demand for the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.
The two favourites to be the next Fianna Fail leader, Michael McGrath and Dara Calleary, have both openly opposed Michal Martin’s stance on this. I think Michal Martin is greatly concerned about being perceived as the socially conservative party in Irish politics.

It would open Fianna Fail to attack on both flanks from 1) fiscally conservative but socially liberal voters who may swing to Fine Gael and 2) socially liberal, nationalist voters who now see Sinn Fein as a better fit for their views.

I think it’s fair to say that, at the very least, Michael Martin has staked his political future on the Eight being repealed or replaced. It this isn’t the case the knives may come immediately. Even if it passes though, his authority has now been publicly questioned and unless Fianna Fail manage to close the gap to Fine Gael by the end of the year I can see a leadership challenge emerge.

Mary Lou McDonald is now the President-Elect of Sinn Fein. Opinions vary on whether Sinn Fein see an immediate boost in the polls from this. I think it will take time, as plenty of media outlets and political commentators have already implied that this is only a superficial change.

Mary Lou McDonald needs a catalyst to really show that Sinn Fein is her party now. An issue that she can directly lead and take on the government over. She nearly had it over the Frances Fitzgerald issue, before Michael Martin shrewdly made it his own.

She is an excellent debater and she is able to hold her own in most Dail exchanges. I see Fine Gael as the leading party over the next eighteen months at least. The key challenge for Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein is to convince the public that they are the viable alternative. Currently, Fianna Fail hold a considerable lead in the polls (see latest from January 21st below) but may struggle on a whole host of issues as previously discussed.

 The UK is looking increasingly isolated in international circles. Some of this is clearly down to Brexit and the pressure it has put on relations with the EU 26 nations. This is not the only reason though. Actions taken by some of its other allies have led to binary choices for the British which have had very obvious downsides.
In the past, they may have been in a position to arbitrate these disputes but currently there are simply not enough resources available or focus to take on this role.

I write this as I read that Donald Trump’s visit to the United Kingdom has been cancelled. The writing was on the wall for this visit for some time. Many groups had rallied around it and used it as a lightning rod to channel their frustrations about the current state of the United Kingdom.

It seems very likely that any kind of visit (there were already previous indications that it would be toned down from a full state visit) would have been met protests. Clearly Trump didn’t fancy that.

However, relations have been strained between Theresa May and Donald Trump before this. When Trump retweeted a Britain First video in November, it was met with serious criticism from the British Government. Trump in turn reacted by tweeting;

"Theresa, don’t focus on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom. We are doing just fine!"

It will be a challenge to move relations back to where they were under almost every President before Trump over the last thirty years. There have been very few diplomatic crises between the US and the UK in that time. Unfortunately for the UK Brexit and the Trump presidency occurred within seven months.

It is difficult to envisage a return to the previous level of relations while Trump remains as president. The challenge is that he will continue to say/tweet controversial remarks. May will continue to come under severe pressure by her electorate to condemn the most odious and abhorrent of these remarks. Even mild public criticism will irk Trump and probably cause him to lash out publicly. The downward spiral will then continue…

Furthermore, Trump’s foreign policy lacks the nuance of previous administrations. In the Palestinian question, he has practically cast off any semblance of neutrality by recognising Jerusalem as the undisputed, undivided capital of Israel and publicly criticising the Palestinian leadership. May does not have the stomach to seriously oppose this policy and this will not her position or popularity in the Middle East.

Similarly, in the ongoing dispute between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the British government has failed to level any criticism of the new Saudi regime despite obvious human rights abuses in their Yemeni campaign.

Major arms deals from the UK to Saudi Arabia mean there is little scope to work with the Iranian side to mediate this crisis or, at the very least, maintain cordial relations with Iran. Boris Johnson did defend the Iranian Nuclear Agreement this week but it may not be enough after his earlier gaffe in the Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe scandal.

The lack of allies currently in Europe is highly linked to Brexit and it will be difficult to change this in the short to medium term until the Brexit question is (if ever?) resolved. Ironically, if the UK had voted to Remain, I think there would now be a lot of scope to take more of a role as a leader in the EU. It would be able to work with the many eastern countries who have a healthy euro scepticism and it may have been able to get concessions on the overall EU immigration policy.

These countries have recently pushed for closer ties and integration with China. Increased trade with China is a key objective of the British government. Fortunately for the UK, Chinese-British relations have not been damaged by the Trump or Brexit factors. Managing this relationship will be crucial to a post- EU Britain.

On a Eurozone budget, it would not have had a say, but could have still have pushed back on proposed tax harmonisation and worked with the smaller nations who it has had historically strong ties with such as Malta, Cyprus and, more recently, Ireland.

Brexit has also negatively impacted ties with Russia as allegations and accusations of interference in the Brexit referendum have been levelled and rejected while US sanctions have been enforced. Again, increasing ties with Russia makes a lot of sense moving forward in terms of diplomatic clout and trade but the UK may be hamstrung here by US/Russia relations…

In summary, there are many challenges currently facing British diplomats and the UK government. It has been a challenging few years overall for the UK. However, the UK still has a lot of soft power and brand Britain is very strong. I see this almost everywhere I go in the world. A genuine problem currently is the political paralysis of the British Government as it struggles to come to terms with the competing factions in its government as well as major opposition to Brexit.
​
The UK will only be able to start to mend and build further ties when it has a clearer idea of where it wants to go and regains it sense of purpose. No pragmatic nation wants to build further ties with a rudderless country in a perceived state of political and economic malaise…

I sometimes place an over emphasis on individual leaders and how their decisions and interactions can shape and dictate global events. Please allow me to do so once more. For this article, I want to pick a few quotes from Emmanuel Macron and Xi Jinping during Macon’s recent trip to China that I believe capture the aims and attitudes of both men.

I have written in the past about Macron’s grand plans for France and Europe. I believe he sees himself as heading a France that is on the cusp of regaining its place as joint leader of the European Union, after allowing Germany to dominate proceedings since the financial crash in 2008.

To do so, while he tackles legacy domestic issues at home, he must also present a dynamic and confident France abroad. A large part of his election manifesto was to make France competitive again. To do this, he must increase French exports. China is naturally the most attractive market so this trip was a major test and opportunity for Macron.

For Xi Jinping, a man who has the world at his feet, Macron’s visit was an opportunity to host a leader of a still influential European nation while not being overawed as the realities of their respective economic strength becomes more evident each day. This visit carried a lot less pressure for XI Jinping but did give him the chance to project Chinese prestige and strength to Europe as it continues its Belt Road Initiative project.

Macron started his three-day tour in Xi’an, the ancient starting point of the Silk Roads to show his commitment to China’s “new silk road”, the afore-mentioned Belt Road Initiative.

“After all, the ancient Silk Roads were never only Chinese,” ……  “By definition, these roads can only be shared. If they are roads, they cannot be one-way,”

This was a clear message to China that current trade imbalances cannot continue indefinitely. He later referenced the exact figures of French imports and exports to China and it was a recurrent theme throughout his trip.

Macron pulled out all the stops in terms of flattering the Chinese with Chinese literature quotes, a visit to a very important but virtually unknown Buddhist pagoda in Xi’an and the gift of a white horse, Vesuvius.

Unfortunately for Macron, despite his Gallic charm offensive.  he struggled to deliver many major deals or positive “results” on the trip. He had urged caution before the trip and justified this on the trip stating;

“I don’t want to give the impression that we made this trip to obtain as many contracts as possible,” ……“We have secured unprecedented openings ... which are the result of much hard work.”

This did come across as a little Trumpesque and all it was missing were a few ‘great’, ‘tremendous’ and huge’ adjectives strewn in. France simply doesn’t have the economic strength to dictate favourable trading terms with China. While Macron believes he represents the undivided European Union position, this is simply not, yet at least, the case.

Only this week I wrote about the divisions emerging in the European Union. I failed to mention the economic divergence which became apparent in a summit hosted by Viktor Orban last November. It included leaders of China and sixteen eastern European nations (Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia).

China has already benefitted from these divisions by making major investments in peripheral EU countries like Greece, Hungary and Poland. It’s a smart move designed to create divisions in Europe (not dissimilar to what Putin’s Russia often orchestrates) and also to create exit and entrance points for the Belt Road Initiative in Europe. The major difference with Russia though is that China has the financial clout to build and sponsor major infrastructure projects. It’s a tired cliché but money still talks…

Macron and other EU leaders are aware of this. Macron went as far as almost rebuking Xi Jinping for this by stating the below, although it was very veiled criticism and probably aimed more at the leaders of sixteen nations who attended the November summit in Budapest;

“Europe has often shown itself divided about China,”….“And China won’t respect a continent, a power, when some member states let their doors freely open.”…“China, which is a great power, does not respect a country that sells its essential infrastructures to the lowest bidder,”

Ultimately this trip was a little underwhelming. It delivered little in terms of concrete results. Macron can console himself slightly by acknowledging that he did show a lot more sophistication and understanding of China than Donald Trump managed to back in November. However, this does not make up for the lack of political and economic power Macron has compared to the US.

While Macron clearly believes he represents both France and the European Union, I believe Xi Jinping saw him as a leader of a country of 67 million people, which would be the equivalent of the seventh largest province in China. When Macron returns to France and tries to follow up on some of the initiatives discussed in China, he may also come to this realisation pretty rapidly…
 
 
 
 
 

Unfortunately, this article is a little dated already. I first alluded to this divide back in June in an article about the PIIGs but then got pulled in a myriad of directions and topics. The evidence of this divide has grown since.

The recent demands of the Polish and Hungarian leaders for a greater say in running the European Union, particularly in the areas of budget and immigration, at a joint press conference was what reminded me that I not returned to this topic in some time. The image above of both men standing strong and divided will play well with their electorate, as well as populists across Europe.

I still think it is worth discussing now as it may be a key factor in the European Union in the near to medium term. There is a clear gap opening between the western EU states clustered around France and Germany and the Eastern states led by Poland and Hungary.

This is not a simple “them and us” divide and both camps do not neatly fit into sides. However, there are factors that are worth looking at. The easiest way is probably to look at the different tensions between the West and Hungary and Poland respectively, while looking at how they have aligned their interests in the meantime. Finally, identifying where they can find allies in the rest of Europe.

Viktor Orban is the combative, outspoken leader of the conservative Fidesz party. He has been Prime Minister since April 2010, though he was also previously Prime Minister from 1998 to 2002. He has passed a number of controversial laws, including an article in the constitution in support of traditional marriage.

However, the real fissure between himself and the many members of the western states stems from his views on immigration. In 2015, at the height of the migrant crisis, Hungary erected a border fence between itself and Serbia so that it could monitor the immigrants entering the country.

Prior to this, Orban had rejected the conditions of the Dublin Agreement in June and prevented immigrants being returned to Hungary. A year later he caused further controversy when he claimed that

“Hungary does not need a single migrant for the economy to work, or the population to sustain itself, or for the country to have a future,”

and

“every single migrant poses a public security and terror risk”….“For us migration is not a solution but a problem ... not medicine but a poison, we don’t need it and won’t swallow it,”

While deemed deplorable by numerous political commentators, this language resonates well with many across Europe, as the relative success of Marine Le Pen and Nigel Farage in France and the UK indicates. Orban also highlighted the fact that the western states did not have to face the “invasion” in the same way, as they were far away from the migration path.

Poland was initially, at least partially, supportive of the EU’s immigration measure and voted Yes in the European Union Justice and Home Affairs Council majority vote to relocate 120,000 refugees in September 2015.

In October of that year, the Law and Justice party came to power. It is also a socially conservative party, though it wasn’t perceived as quite as euro-skeptical party as Orban’s Fidesz party. It has publicly stated its admiration of the Fidesz party with one its founders Jarosław Kaczyński previously claiming

“a day will come when we have a Budapest in Warsaw.”

The Polish government, under the Law and Justice party, came into conflict with the European Union in 2017 over its plans to check the supreme court’s independence and to assume control of the appointment of judges. The proposed legislation would have immediately fired the majority of the sitting eighty-three judges on the supreme court subject to being re-appointed.

The attempted removal of the separation between the legislative and judicial elements of Polish society was met with a fierce rebuke by the European Commission. The vice president, Frans Timmermans, said;

“Judicial reforms in Poland mean that the country’s judiciary is now under the political control of the ruling majority. In the absence of judicial independence, serious questions are raised about the effective application of EU law,” 

The crisis reached a crescendo in December with the EU threating to invoke the most serious sanctions possible, including suspension of voting rights and blocking financial transfers.

This would have required the backing of all other member states. Viktor Orban declared at the time that Hungary would veto this under any circumstances. A defiant message to the Commission that they can’t bully member states into submission.

Looking forward, there is no doubt that both governments will work together on a number of strategic aims.
On immigration, they can find allies in nearly all oppositions across Europe (fortunately, Ireland does not have a far right, anti -immigration party, the reasons for which I hope to explore soon). The recent success of Freedom Party of Austria (FPO) which allowed them to enter Austrian government as the junior coalition partner is a boon, particularly for Victor Orban. While the FPO are a lot less bellicose about their opposition to immigration, there is certainly common ground to explore and expand upon.

EU interference in domestic issues is particularly irksome to both governments and it plays well to both electorates when they effectively tell the EU to “butt out”. Orban supported Spain’s Catalonian crackdown , claiming

“The Catalonian referendum is a Spanish internal issue, and accordingly Hungary is not commenting on the subject”.

The plans of Emmanuel Macron to further harmonize and integrate the European Union will be an area of opposition for both and they may be able to draw in allies here that would not necessarily agree on their views on immigration but feel threatened by further EU consolidation.

Ironically, the United Kingdom may have fallen into this category. Theresa May visited Poland in December to sign a military pact and it was notable that she claimed the judicial crisis was a domestic issue for Poland to decide.

The UK may still look to both nations for support in the latter stages of the Brexit negotiations. So far, the European side has shown itself to be united but any division would aid the UK’s negotiating hand.

In summary, a divide is opening up between the governments of some eastern and western EU nations. There are a number of challenges that need to hurdled. The European Commission and Parliament have to understand that dialogue is essential, while at the same time not pandering to populist, far right policies that threaten human rights or the rule of law.

Europe is finally enjoying a relative period of geo-political stability after a tumultuous decade. If this is to continue through 2018 and into 2019, a pragmatic approach is needed by all sides. I am not certain that this will be the case and will revisit this topic over the next eighteen months. Interesting times lie ahead…

I have been following events in Catalonia from afar since I last wrote about the violent reaction of the government after the independence referendum. Since then, my attention and focus has been a little closer to home with a relatively dramatic period of events and negotiations concerning Brexit and a scandal in the Irish government. On the international front, the decision of Donald Trump to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel was a major talking point among the liberal, chattering classes.
​
In this age of constant news, viewed and accessed through many devices and mediums, it is very difficult for a topic to dominate the headlines for more than a fleeting moment. The Catalan separatist movement suffered from this.

There was genuine outrage across Europe and further afield in the aftermath of the crackdown. The images of citizens being assaulted by members of the Spanish police as they attempted to exercise their democratic right to vote was abhorrent to most people across the world.

I wrote that Rajoy had astutely guessed that whilst he may initially face a global backlash, he would not face major challenges from his Spanish constituents and that the ire abroad would quickly dissipate.

A crucial victory for Rajoy was the muted response to the violence from the European Union leaders and leaders of the EU 27. A crisis like this can either cause a period of introspection where you analyse the issues that have caused it or a hardening of attitudes where the blame is focused solely on the other side.

On this occasion Europe, in the midst of a number of existential challenges, leaders were happy to call this a Spanish problem and wash their hands of any responsibility. This attitude was summed up by the words of Frans Timmermans, the First Vice President of the European Parliament;

“Let me be clear: Violence does not solve anything in politics. It is never an answer, never a solution. And it can never be used as a weapon or instrument. None of us want to see violence in our societies. However, it is a duty for any government to uphold the law, and this sometimes does require the proportionate use of force.”

I believe this deafening silence of condemnation further emboldened Rajoy to pursue criminal charges against the leaders of the Catalan Independence bid, as well as dissolving the Catalan parliament.  Arrest warrants were issued for at least ten Catalonian politicians. The majority of these were arrested and some remain in jail. Carlos Puigdemont and four former ministers fled to Belgium, where they remain. Spain initially tried to extradite them but has now withdrawn the five European arrest warrants.

The election on the 21st of December will be a decisive victory for Rajoy and Spanish unionist if they can break the majority currently held by pro-Independence parties. It is important to note that less than half of the electorate turned out to vote in the initial Independence Referendum in September.

The Spanish government claims that the silent majority have always favoured unity and may have voted for pro-independence parties in the past more to protect local interests as opposed to wanting an independent Catalonia. They can then state that the results of this election are a more accurate reflection of political desire for an independent Catalonia.

From the most recent polling data available, it does appear that the pro-independence parties will fall short of an absolute majority. The period of turmoil and uncertainty seems to have spooked much of the political centre ground. It is hard to imagine that was not the intention of the Spanish government.

However, a renewed majority for the separatist parties would be a crushing blow for the Spanish Government. It would be seen as a defiant rejection of political intimidation and violence by the pro-independence supporters in the region but met with fear by many others who see independence as a distraction from everyday life.

Unfortunately, I can only see the Spanish government extending the olive branch from a position of power. If the unionist parties break the majority or even gain a majority themselves, Rajoy can offer congratulations to the Catalan people for their pragmatism and for pulling Spain back from the brink, it will be labelled a victory for every citizen of Spain. He may even then adopt an apologetic tone for some the events that transpired over the previous four months.

The issue with this is that there are numerous secessionist movements across the European Union. Leaders of countries facing secessionist challenges may in future adopt the Rajoy model of delegitimizing regional elections and tacitly approving heavy-handedness and violence by national police forces, safe in the knowledge that the European Union will stay silent and call it a national, domestic issue.

After the admirable approach taken by the United Kingdom with the Scottish referendum, Europe may have now lurched a few steps right in its approach to regional independence movements. Coupled with the rise of far-right political parties, we may see a lot more political violence over the next decade.
​
This will force politicians of all hues to offer innovative ideas and solutions to ensure the evolving European Union projects continues to contain a liberal, pacifist core. If not, Europe may fracture from future events and political causes that the average EU citizen is not even aware of today. The European leaders chose to ignore the violence in Catalonia but that may in time may be the catalyst for the collapse of the entire European project if a red line against institutionalised political violence is not drawn.

I recently wrote about how the Brexit deadlock was a perfectly destructive equilibrium of opposing aims and forces. The de facto vetoes held by the Irish Government on one side and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) on the other meant no viable solution was available that satisfied both sides. This led me to believe that heads would roll as one side was simply cast aside.

I was wrong on this for now. All sides were able to come to an agreement that allowed the talks to progress to the second phase, which will focus on trade. The impasse was broken mostly by vague language that was deemed acceptable by everyone as it was possible for a broad spectrum of interpretations of what the text actually meant.

“Regulatory alignment” was perceived as less constricting to the DUP than “no convergence” between the North and South that led them to effectively veto the agreement that had been decided on Monday last.  For most commentators the second iteration, which was agreed last Friday is not much more favourable to the DUP’s stated goals. They have signed off on a document that commits the UK to full alignment between the North and South unless there are prior, agreed solutions.

“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom committed to maintaining full alignment with those rules of the internal market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy, and the protection of the Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement. In this context, implementation and oversight mechanisms for the specific arrangements to be found will be established to safeguard the integrity of the internal market.”

The breakthrough was greeted with guarded optimism by most sides, with the Irish government and Theresa May’s camps being the most vocal and ebullient. I wanted to wait until the weekend had passed to assess the fallout.

Furthermore, for Theresa May to navigate the talks and deliver a final solution, she needs to keep the hard right, anti-EU faction of her party onside.  The uniformity of the message delivered by members of her party over the weekend was a crucial acid test of whether she had been able to get all sides onboard. Cracks that appear already will possibly move to chasms as the trade talks will evolve from aims and goals to facts, laws and treaties.

David Davis spoke on the Andrew Marr show yesterday and appeared bullish on the United Kingdom’s trade deal prospects, while playing down the commitments agreed in Phase 1. Davis claimed the divorce settlement will only be paid if a deal is agreed and that the text agreed was more a statement than a concrete agreement;

"We want to protect the peace process and we also want to protect Ireland from the impact of Brexit for them. This was a statement of intent more than anything else.”

Michael Gove, the Environment Minister and prominent Brexiteer, went a step further when he stated;

“If the British people dislike the arrangement that we have negotiated with the EU, the agreement will allow a future government to diverge.”

To me, this means that if the Tories win the next election, they can renege on many of their commitments and start over. While he public supported May’s efforts, this undoubtedly undermines her authority and negotiating position.
 
This has sparked alarm bells in Ireland and Europe and backlash from members of Labour and the Scottish National Party.

The DUP response has already been quite toxic and has done the most to poison relations between North and South. Sammy Wilson made some deplorable comments about cowboys and Indians in the past few weeks. Arlene Foster grudgingly approved the deal with the caveat that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. However, the most insidious comments came from Ian Paisley Junior who claimed the DUP “had done over” the Irish Government and Leo Vardker. This is almost Trump-esque language that will harden Irish resolve as well as cause consternation among many in London.

I won’t be writing about Brexit again until 2018, though there may be further breakthroughs and crucial details that emerge at the meeting of European leaders next week. For now, talks have progressed without real progress and I think all sides will be happy to park the key issues until the New Year. For 2017, disaster has been averted and jobs have been retained.

This agreement was akin so a small release of energy that has resolved the threat of a political earthquake in the very short term. Unfortunately, the underlying fundamentals have not changed and it is still my view that the Irish border is a catch 22 position that can’t be resolved with the current agreement. I expect the Spring to be a very turbulent time for Brexit and political volatility to greatly increase. That’s for later though, to paraphrase the Chinese proverb, “may we live in interesting times, but let’s enjoy Christmas first…”

I am not going to go into why it’s wrong for President Trump to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel this week. Furthermore, I will leave the analysis of what the fallout will be from this to others or for another day.

Jerusalem is a city that has captured the hearts and minds of millions around the world for millennia. This decision will be comprehensively scrutinised and analysis will be mostly filled with passionate and long held views.

What I want to focus on is how Prime Minister Netanyahu was an early innovator in manipulating President Trump and why that success has now helped him land a major victory for him and his party.
Benjamin Netanyahu has many faults but I believe he was very quick to identify that the best way to get what you want from Donald Trump is to flatter him. In light of Trump’s trip to Asia where almost every Asian leader followed this strategy, this may seem obvious.

However, this was not as obvious back in February when Netanyahu visited Trump at the White House. Netanyahu waxed lyrical about how great a tried to Israel Donald Trump is;

 “I deeply value your friendship.  To me, to the state of Israel, it was so clearly evident in the words you just spoke -- Israel has no better ally than the United States.”

This would have been music to Trump’s ears. However, he went further than that. He then suggested that there were new avenues towards peace that they can explore and that the United States would back Israel in these aims.

“And I believe that under your leadership, this change in our region creates an unprecedented opportunity to strengthen security and advance peace. Let us seize this moment together.  Let us bolster security.  Let us seek new avenues of peace.  And let us bring the remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States to even greater heights.”

There are allegations that one of Trump’s major benefactors, Sheldon Adelson of Las Vegas fame, had sought a commitment from Trump on moving the embassy to Jerusalem and recognising it as Israel’s capital. Trump’s son in law, Jared Kushner, has also been a vocal supporter of Israel in the past. He was recently recorded saying “there may be no solution” to the Middle East peace process.

Netanyahu quickly realised that it is important to have allies in Trump’s inner circle as mentioned above. This, along with flattery and allowing Trump to believe Netanyahu’s aims were his own ideas, have given him incredible leverage in the White House.

Other foreign leaders will now take note of this success for Israel and may look to identify ‘courtiers’ who can help them achieve their aims, while at the same time praising Trump publicly.

This will be more difficult for leaders of Western, democratic nations who will face pressure form their electorate in a scenario where they perceived as sycophantic to Trump, given his often misogynist and potentially racist views and statements.

Russia is an obvious example of a country that has tried this approach. Unfortunately for Putin, they were a little too obvious in their attempts at disparaging Hillary Clinton and placing Trump on the throne.

Now it appears likely that other countries, like Israel already, will bear the fruits of Russia’s toil. The world is now in a position where the most powerful can be manipulated and his strategy moulded by flattery and scheming. The results of this could be unexpected, widespread and potentially catastrophic…

The Symmetrical Power of the Irish Government and DUP will probably lead to a Political Earthquake…
​
“Earthquakes are usually caused when rock underground suddenly breaks along a fault. This sudden release of energy causes the seismic waves that make the ground shake. When two blocks of rock or two plates are rubbing against each other, they stick a little. ... When the rocks break, the earthquake occurs.”

Yesterday was a disaster for North-South relations in Ireland. The DUP scuppered a deal that had been agreed by all sides AKA the Irish Government, the Tory Government (granted not the DUP, whose ten seats prop them up) and the European side.

By most accounts it appears that Theresa May had verbally agreed to a deal that committed Northern Ireland to “regulatory alignment” with the Republic and the European Union without consulting the DUP beforehand.
This was either a case of misplaced confidence or extreme naivete. We are now in a position where two opposing forces are pushing against each other in a state of equilibrium (aka stalemate in the negotiations). Unfortunately, the window for an agreement to be reached that appeases both sides has almost completely passed.

This equilibrium cannot last indefinitely. It is increasingly likely that at least one side will be forced under and burnt and the ensuing release of energy and emotions will have devastating implications for those involved.
At this stage, the most likely victim of this political earthquake is the British Government. Theresa May’s authority has been consistently undermined and her position looks untenable. Having said that, it’s looked untenable for months and nothing has dislodged her yet.

Nobody across the political spectrum has so far proposed a solution that is acceptable to all parties. I would hazard a guess and say that nobody so far has guessed correctly what will happen when either the Irish Govt or the DUP are let down or the talks collapse completely.

If Brexit has taught me one thing, it’s that logical outcomes rarely happen when this level of emotion is invested by all sides. As I have stated already, the British Government do look the most vulnerable to this potential, political rupture. However, the potential backlash could take down Leo Varadkar, Arlene Foster or even threaten the stability of the United Kingdom.

We are close to an earthquake that will be have devastating but unforeseen circumstances. Leadership and maturity must now be shown by all sides if we are to avoid this…

The last week has seen many spats and comments from Irish, British and European politicians on Brexit, trade and the Irish Border question. Theresa May travels to Brussels for a crunch meeting with Jean Claude Juncker tomorrow so negotiations and emotions should reach fever pitch over the next two weeks, after the relative phoney war of the Autumn.

The dynamics between parties and individuals is complex, fluid and dynamic. I’ve tried to summarize the position some of the groups involved below in terms of what they really want to happen in the coming weeks, red lines and relative power. It’s a contentious topic and certainly up for debate so feel free to comment or correct below;

Theresa May and the mainstream Conservatives;
2017 has been her annus horribilis. She started the year in a position of relative strength with Labour in disarray and massively trailing in the polls. Her Lancashire speech was met with muted praise by many in the British media. However, it’s all been downhill since including losing her majority in the General Election in June. This led to a supply and confidence agreement with the DUP which has massively impacted her negotiating leverage since.

At this point she would settle for concluding Phase 1 without her government collapsing or a heave from the Brexiteer side of the party led by Boris Johnson, Michael Gove or Jacob Rees-Mogg. To avoid this, she’ll have to do enough to satisfy both which will be difficult. The explicit backing of the Irish veto by Donald Tusk last week was a further blow and it will be almost impossible to keep everyone happy.

Pro – Brexit Conservatives;
While there is not a uniform position held by all those who favoured Brexit there are some clear demands that resonate with most of these members. They are already massively dismayed by the approximate 50 billion pound divorce bill. The fact that there wasn’t a heave against Theresa May then shows the fear they have now that it could lead to an election. They are not as pushed on what happens to the Irish border as long as progress to the next round of talks isn’t delayed further. The No Deal threat/demand has been mentioned but is still seen as the nuclear option. To be honest, they haven’t been able to impose their aims as much as I had feared back in July.

The Irish Government;
The Irish Government is in a position of strength since the unequivocal backing of Donald Tusk and the European Union last Friday. Their position seemed to be quite clear in that they would veto progress to the next round unless they have concrete guarantees from the British government that there would be no physical infrastructure on the Irish border. Their ultimate desire is that the UK remains in the Single Market. This now seems impossible but there is the potential that Northern Ireland will become a special designated zone.

Taking a hard-line publicly will also win votes. I think the Irish people have been quite riled up over the last few weeks. On the domestic front, there is no potential to be heavily criticised for being aggressive, this position does not to be defended on two fronts. Fine Gael do need a good PR story after what happened with Frances Fitzgerald and the upped ante of these talks is a welcome distraction as I wrote here.

Democratic Unionist Party;
Their position is possibly the most complex. Like the Irish government, they also want no physical infrastructure on the Irish border. They realize that this could potentially lead to backlash from the Nationalist community that could energize their voting habits and increase the nationalist turnout at Westminster elections, as well as any future Northern Ireland Assembly elections.

However, they have also said that any concessions or proposals by the Conservative party that leads divergence between the British mainland and Northern Ireland would force them to end the supply and confidence agreement. On paper, this also gives them a veto. In reality, if they did this Labour are currently polling ahead and a Jeremy Corbyn led Labour government would be a disaster for the DUP, on top of them losing their kingmaker position.

Jeremy Corbyn and Labour;
This is a very challenging position to describe and one really open for debate. Corbyn was heavily criticised for not campaigning hard enough for the UK to remain in the European Union prior to the Brexit referendum. For most of his political career, her has been a euro sceptic. I believe the government collapsing is their main aim today. The problem for them, is that they have no real way of making this happen. This is not to say that the government will not fall, I have outlined above how it could occur. If they did suddenly win a snap election, I don’t think they would try and reverse Brexit but would look for the softest version of Brexit possible, though probably falling short of complete free movement of people and goods.

The European Union;
I think at this stage they are quite happy with how things have proceeded. The initial shock and horror at the disarray of the British negotiating team has given way to a realisation that they hold most of the aces and are negotiating from a position of relative power. I was surprised at the level of backing given to Ireland on Friday though I suspect some of this was posturing and behind closed doors Leo Varadkar was encouraged to avoid using his veto. Their red line is that the United Kingdom will not have the same level of access to the single market with the free, uninhibited movement of people throughout the European Union.

Sinn Fein;
I think Sinn Fein’s position is worth analysing. With the Northern Ireland assembly not currently sitting, Sinn Fein are not directly involved in negotiations. That being said, they represent the nationalist community in Northern Ireland as expressed through both the Westminster and previous Northern Ireland Assembly elections. I don’t think they would like to see Brexit reversed tomorrow. Brexit has helped propel talks of a United Ireland in the mainstream conscious of the Irish people in way I haven’t seen in my (admittedly relatively short) lifetime.
​
Equally, I do not believe they would want a disastrous Brexit either as they may suffer a backlash over not going back into government in the North. To be fair they have been outright in their calls for Northern Ireland to remain in the European Union from day one. This is unlikely but divergences between the British mainland and Northern Ireland would be publicly and privately welcomed, particularly if the DUP did follow through on their threat to pull down the government. 

What a week. Irish politics is often drab, parochial and all too predictable. We aren’t often blessed with great politicians who can command the attention of the world or political events that have a global reach. For every Parnell, there is a Pat Rabbitte and most of our political crises end with a shrug of shoulders, a nudge and a wink or in extreme cases, a never-ending tribunal that produces non-criminal results years after people have stopped caring…

The last week has been different. We had high drama that captured the attention not only of the Irish public but of the global media. It was a perfect storm of brinkmanship between Ireland’s two most powerful politicians that brought the government to the edge of collapse. It also contained a human element in the abhorrent treatment of a good man, Maurice McCabe.

Too often, the issues that can divide politicians and governments are over theoretical or abstract points that seem to be part of a different, political universe. However, the allegation that a respected Minister, Frances Fitzgerald, allowed a whistle-blower to be wrongfully labelled a paedophile brought out anger and disgust in the Irish electorate.

To briefly summarise, the allegations of wrongdoing have floated around for quite a while over Frances Fitzgerald. It came to a head last Thursday when Sinn Fein tabled a motion of no confidence in the Dail after a barrage of criticism by Mary Lou McDonald. Michael Martin quickly realised that that there was anger within his own party over the behaviour of Mrs Fitzgerald and that he could not allow Sinn Fein to be the main opposition in this crisis. So, on Friday morning last Fianna Fail lodged their own motion of no confidence to be tabled this Tuesday. The Soldiers of Destiny had crossed the Rubicon and the nation held its breath.

The onus was initially put straight back on Leo Varadkar. Many believed he would cast Frances Fitzgerald aside as the motion passing would lead to a General Election right before Christmas. He didn’t, in fact he backed her to the hilt. It was a string and decisive counter attack that many labelled as Leo calling Martin’s bluff. Many Fine Gael TDs came out with vehement defences of Mrs Fitzgerald and claimed that Fianna Fail were playing political games at a crucial period of Brexit negotiations and that the Charleton Tribunal should be allowed to do its job, starting in January.

There were behind the scenes meetings over the weekend between the leaders and documents were exchanged. On Monday morning both sides held the same line and it looked like Michael Martin was going to force an election that he wouldn’t win. His future as leader was genuinely on the line with murmurs of discontent.

Then on final flop two more damaging emails emerged Monday evening. Fianna Fail finally had a winning hand. Frances Fitzgerald was finished and now Leo had to act to avert a backlash from the public. He took his time and looked indecisive but eventually on Tuesday morning Frances Fitzgerald resigned and the motion was withdrawn.

Varadkar has lost a lot of political capital. Many political pundits are incredulous as to why he continued to publicly back her after he became aware of the further emails on Saturday morning. It strikes of political naivety and a lack of experience.

I’m not his biggest fan but I think he can easily recover. He is fortunate enough that almost immediately after this debacle, the focus is right back on Brexit talks. He, along with Simon Coveney (the Minister for Foreign Affairs) have been firm but fair in holding the Irish position on vetoing progress to the next stage without concrete proposal on the Irish border question.

He benefits from the fact that the public and all the major parties agree on this. There is no potential for an attack at home as long as he holds strong. If he continues to do so and is able to gain favourable concessions from the British government (they have already acquiesced to the financial demands of the EU this week) Frances Fitzgerald and Maurice McCabe will be yesterday’s problem.

Michael Martin clearly won a great battle this week. However, it didn’t significantly enhance Fianna Fail’s political strength. They continue to prop up Fine Gael while having to defend against attack from Sinn Fein and their new leader, Mary Lou McDonald. The Supply and Confidence agreement looks damaged beyond repair. The onus is now on either Michael or Leo to call a Spring election but Fianna Fail are yet to move ahead of Fine Gael in poling (the next poll will be very, very interesting) and as Fianna Fail have ruled out a coalition with Sinn Fein, their political mobility is limited.
​
In summary, this was a bad week for Leo and Fine Gael but they have a lot more flexibility and potential upside in the next few weeks. Hannibal crushed the Roman Army at the Battle of Cannae and looked to be about to conquer Rome. However, he didn’t press his advantage and this eventually allowed the Romans to consolidate their position and strike back. Fianna Fail are a little reminiscent of that post victory Carthage army wandering around Italy without a clear plan. Unless Fine Gael completely collapse on the border or Mick Wallace/The Charleton Tribunal deliver further bombshells in the coming weeks this crisis may prove to be a footnote when the almost inevitable Spring election rolls around…

It may have seemed impossible for nearly all of Israel’s existence thus far but I think it’s likely in the next five years that these two nations will open official diplomatic channels. It is an act that may cause serious backlash and anger across the Middle East. Alternatively, after years of disillusionment with the leadership of Saudi Arabia, it may simply be met with a shrug of the shoulder and further sense of dejection with the state of the region.

Since the inception of the state of Israel in May 1948, Saudi Arabia has refused to acknowledge its existence. It has supported the rights of Palestinians and called for a withdrawal from territory occupied by Israel after the war in 1967 through being a charter member of the Arab League.

Crucially, it didn’t participate in the wars in 1948, 1967 or 1973. Saudi Arabia’s long term strategic alliance with the United States may have had something to do with this. This was exacerbated by the mutual distrust between General Nasser led Egypt, the champion of pan- Arabism with secular, Soviet Union sympathies and the absolute monarchy of Saudi Arabia which used Wahhabism as a crucial pillar of its legitimacy.

However, since 1979 and the Islamic revolution in Iran, the strategic aims of Saudi Arabia and Israel have converged. They both have a desire to curb the influence of Iran across the Middle East. The ruling Saud family initially saw the emergence of the Islamic Republic as an existential threat to their existence.

In recent times, the threat to their existence has subsided somewhat. It has evolved into a struggle for hegemony in the Middle East. As the relative power and influence of Egypt waned in the years after the assassination of Anwar Sadat (who actually lost his life for signing a peace Treaty with Israel which made it the first Arab state to officially recognize Israel) the vacuum that opened up was the prize that fuelled the rivalry.

In the 1980’s Saudi Arabia, which still did not have the military capability, bankrolled Saddam Hussein in the First Gulf War against Iran.  It is important to note that other Middle Eastern nations also supported Iraq but Saudi Arabia spent approximately thirty billion dollars in this conflict.

In more recent times Iran has increased its influence in Lebanon, as well as in post-Saddam Iraq and now in Syria. In Syria, it has acted as a bulwark for the regime of Bashir Al-Assad. The actions of Saudi Arabia in Yemen, Syria and Bahrain amongst others has failed so far to really damage the Iranian influence in the region.

The emergence of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia has led to a raft of major changes in a relatively brief period of time. Just last week, he consolidated his position as the heir apparent as well as the de facto ruler by purging a large number of the Royal Court’s retinue. 

He has continued the war in Yemen, a key proxy battleground between Iran and Saudi Arabia while allegedly forcing the Lebanese Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, to resign over the continued power and influence of Hezbollah (albeit with a democratic mandate).

It’s his views on the future relationship with Israel though that I believe could mark one of the most seismic changes in Middle Eastern diplomatic relations over the last fifty years. He has spoken about how Saudi Arabia adopted a more rigid Islamic outlook in the aftermath of the Iranian revolution

“What happened in the last 30 years is not Saudi Arabia. What happened in the region in the last 30 years is not the Middle East. After the Iranian revolution in 1979, people wanted to copy this model in different countries, one of them is Saudi Arabia. We didn’t know how to deal with it. And the problem spread all over the world. Now is the time to get rid of it.”

The major issue with the above statement is that it could be construed to mean “get rid of the Islamic Republic of Iran”. In order to do this, he may engage further with Israel, as the one other Middle Eastern nation that possibly reaches the same level of fear and suspicion of the Iranian state.

It is very interesting, and probably not a coincidence, that the Crown Prince used the phrase “moderate”. Just this week, the Israeli military chief, Gadi Eisenkot, gave an interview to the Saudi newspaper Elaph where he described Iran as the “biggest threat to the region” and that Israel would share intelligence with “moderate” Arab states like Saudi Arabia.

Strategically, the US is pivoting away from the Middle East to Asia in the long term. With the current presidency of Donald Trump though, this may be the perfect window of opportunity to gain maximum leverage from agreeing to diplomatic relations and potentially forming a military alliance that goes beyond the tacit one that exists today.
​
This would be a potent combination of the vast reserves of cash held by the Saudis combined with the military might of the Israeli army. It may still seem a stretch to many political observers currently, but we may soon see the emergence of the Saudi-Israel axis as the key power in the Middle East.

Donald Trump's first trip to Asia was an eventful, colourful affair that encompassed ​visits to Japan, South Korea, China, Vietnam and the Philippines. There were a few excellent pictures, including Trump massacring Japanese Carp (see picture directly above) and Abe Shinzo taking a tumble on a golf course.

The trip was met with mixed reviews both domestically and across Asia. My personal view is that Trump managed to not cause any major diplomatic embarrassment to the United States but achieved very little from a strategic perspective. The inflective moment when China openly overtakes the US is accelerating towards us, as I discussed recently. This trip reinforced the view held by many that America, while a crucial partner for many future projects and plans in Asia, will not be the driver and leader of this region.

This is best captured in recent events concerning the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The overarching aim of American foreign policy over the past decade has been a strategic pivot away from the Middle East towards Asia, with a key objective being the creation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

This would have been a free trade agreement between the United States and eleven different Pacific Rim states. The talks began in 2010. Trump withdrew the US from the discussion earlier this year, stating that individual trade agreements with each state would be of greater benefit to the US. The remaining eleven states agreed to the framework this weekend. While Trump will not see this as a failure, China may see it as a success. It is not currently a part of the agreement but may in time seek to join on its own terms and eventually dominate it.

The 19TH Chinese Communist Party Congress that took place in the weeks preceding Trump’s visit was a powerful demonstration of the political unity of the Chinese leadership under the President, Xi Jinping. There was no apparent heir to the throne announced and I think this shows that Xi Jinping is now the most powerful man in the world. The checks and balances of the US political system are increasingly limiting Trump’s preferred course of action on many of his campaign pledges.

However Trump’s hardline rhetoric on North Korea would have been welcomed by both South Korea and Japan.

"NoKo has interpreted America's past restraint as weakness. This would be a fatal miscalculation. Do not underestimate us. AND DO NOT TRY US."

To be honest, at this stage all this appears as is bluster by both sides. Petty squabbling between two insecure leaders who see potential enemies everywhere. The pettiness was surmised by Trump himself in this tweet;
"Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me 'old,' when I would NEVER call him 'short and fat?'"
Since the escalations in the summer I have always been of the view that it will not come to violence and that China is pulling the strings and using the situation to gain maximum leverage in future Sino-US talks…

One thing that has become obvious is that Trump is quite easy to manipulate. Sycophanyc and public displays of affection and loyalty will earn his trust, irrespective of the true underlying intentions. . A notable example of this was Trump’s behaviour in the Philippines. Despite some aggressive back and forth comments between Presidents Duterte and Trump in the past, Duterte put on a bit of a show and Trump loved it, summing up the relationship between them as ;

"We've had a great relationship. This has been very successful."

In summary, Asian leaders learned a lot about Donald Trump over the last twelve or so days. Despite his often-bullish rhetoric and strongman image at home, I think they have finally realized what Putin figured before the US presidential election had even finished. He is a man that has a very limited attention span, cannot focus on an issue over a period of months and years so is always acting reactively and not strategically and that through some grand gestures and displays can be easily manipulated…

It is hard to remember a Taoiseach who puts more effort into his public image than Leo Varadkar. He is part of a breed of new politician who put their image above everything else. Wearing a symbol as divisive as the poppy is a move that was certain to temporarily shift the political discourse away from the key issues, like the current deficiencies in our health services and the homelessness crisis.

This is not lost on Fine Gael. Unfortunately, there has been little tangible progress in the two areas mentioned above. Wearing the Poppy has allowed Varadkar to take the heat off these two issues for a few days.

Furthermore, it was a move that was always going to play well with his political base. This is not to suggest that every Fine Gael supporter is a Poppy wearing anglophile, that’s a very tired and lazy cliché. However, many of the first people to comment on the topic were indignant Sinn Fein supporters. The anger at seeing the Taoiseach in a poppy led to a flurry of calls and emails. Annoying Sinn Fein supporters and Party members will, at least secretly, please plenty of Fine Gael followers.

What I do not want to write about is the appropriateness of the wearing of the poppy by our Taoiseach. There have been numerous articles over the last decade about the poppy, about how many Irishmen fought in the belief that Home Rule would come as a reward for fighting and alternatively about how Brutal and unjust the British Army have been in the past.

There will be further publicity stunts as long as our incumbent Taoiseach sits in office. They will frequently be used to distract the electorate from the issues that matter to the majority on a daily basis. What we must do is see through these smokescreens and continue to demand more from our elected government.
​
Getting into an online debate about the Poppy, no matter how strong your views on the topic are will not move this country forward. Forget Varadkar’s Poppy, let’s focus on the issues that matter until we have a Republic that we are proud of…

The UK government currently seems to be slipping from one scandal to another. It is hard to remember a more visibly powerless Prime Minister (older readers feel free to give some examples below). Since the June election when the Conservative party lost its majority in the June General Election, the government has simply stumbled along. 

The Brexit negotiations have been moving at a glacial pace with minimal results or noteworthy achievements. I recently labeled them almost as a "phoney war". However, this may be one factor in Theresa May's continued survival. The role of Prime Minister is currently quite undesirable for a number of members of the Conservative party. Who wants to be the Prime Minister dragging the United Kingdom out of the European Union, with no deal agreed and the British economy facing a sustained period of economic stagnation. 

There are elements of the party on the pro-Brexit (or historically on the anti-Europe faction) who would relish the afore-mentioned prospect, though they would surely describe it quite differently. Boris Johnson was a late joiner to this cause when he famously declared for Brexit days ahead of the 2016 referendum. He has come as close to any since the June election to openly challenging May with his September article in the Telegraph which lay out his vision for a post-Brexit Britain that was quite different to that of May in her January speech. However the key members rallied around May and the answer to a previous article "Can Boris Oust Theresa" seems for now to be a resounding No. 

The sexual harassment scandal currently enveloping Westminster has cost the Minister for Defense, Michael Fallon, his job. There are numerous MPs implicated for inappropriate behaviour. We may see a few resign in the coming weeks as further details emerge. Fortunately for May, it doesn't seem to be enough at present to  topple the government or force May to stand down. 

It has been a very long time since the "Irish Problem" forced a British Prime Minister to resign. The current lack of progress in forming a new government in the Northern Ireland Assembly does not seem to be a pressing issue for the British public, based on media coverage in Britain.  Theresa May knows that she relies on the ten DUP Westminster seats for her working majority. The DUP can pull down this government at a time of their choosing. It just doesn't seem likely in any potential scenario short of the post Brexit border being the Irish Sea, something the Tories have emphatically ruled out. They simply can not take the risk of a Jeremy Corbyn led Labour ascending to power given his previous dialogues with republican leaders. 

I haven't even mentioned the current scandal with Priti Patel and her unofficial but definitely politically motivated trip to Israel. The fact that she hasn't been dismissed by now again shows just how impotent May currently is.

This lack  of power may actually be what saves her until Brexit is concluded. The analogy that comes to mind is that of the naive, deluded  Islamic Caliph or Ottoman Sultan surrounded by courtiers and advisors who all have their own agendas and seek to influence the leader for their own political gain (cough... Gavin Williamson). It's a fate worse then political death for most but maybe deep down May still believes she can turn things around. It's unlikely but sure surely something has to go right after so many recent wrongs....

The image above is a summary for a campaign I ran on Facebook recently. I had just set up a Facebook page for the website and when I posted for the first few times I received a notification basically asking me if I would like to “boost” my post.

In this sense, boosting applies to paying for my post to appear on people’s walls on Facebook, so as they scroll down it will appear. As an introductory offer, they “give” you 30 Euros worth of free advertising to get started. I did avail of this offer and for 5 euros I was able to appear on 1,050 Walls and 200 people read the article (or at least clicked on the link).

I was able to narrow this down to 18-65 year-old males in UK, US, Hong Kong or Singapore who have explicitly labelled “Politics” as one of their interests on their profile. There were further options to specify available which even allow further focus.

Fake news is a topic that is consistently discussed in political forums. It has gained traction since the election of Donald Trump as US President. It has been used to describe everything from news reports by CNN to alleged attempts by foreign governments to influence elections and public opinion in other countries. There are some excellent articles on this from the Guardian.

In recent times, Facebook have made announcement that they will crack down on media outlets who appear to promote fake news. However, there is still a lot of scope to spread opinions or articles that are very borderline and misleading.

When you consider the resources available to think tanks and potential agencies social media is still a hugely unregulated medium of information dissemination and good old-fashioned propaganda. For example, I just went through the motions of creating a campaign in California for people interested in “Politics”. For 10,000 Euros, you could reach 1,700,000 to 2,000,000 over the space of a week.

This is not a topic that will go away. While I am sure in time there will be ways to enhance greater regulation, for now governments and corporations more opportunity to influence elections and referendums than ever before in a legal manner….

So far, we have discovered very little about what the United Kingdom’s future relationship will look like with the European Union post Brexit. The formal declaration that the UK would be leaving occurred on the 29 March 2017 with the United Kingdom serving the withdrawal notice under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.

The negotiations really started on the 19th June 2017 when the British Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (catchy title!), David Davis, landed in Brussels to negotiate the exit terms with the European Union’s head negotiator, Michael Barnier.

The British Government’s position had been strongly weakened less than ten days before when Theresa May and her Conservative government lost their majority in the House of Commons. This was after they had voluntarily called the election to consolidate their majority. In hindsight, it was a poor decision though at the time most pundits believed It would deliver a larger majority. It didn’t and was possibly the worst prelude to negotiations May could have imagined.

Since then, there has been plenty of back and forth from London to Brussels. Talks are ongoing but seem to deliver very little in terms of concrete results, at least for the public. In fact, I think many people are already suffering from “Brexit fatigue”. Maybe it’s part of the Tory strategy, deliver so little and trickle news to the media so slowly that people eventually stop caring. Unfortunately for them, this won’t work as the media continues to focus on every announcement.

It doesn’t help that the Tories are currently undergoing an internecine leadership battle between those who want to either reverse Brexit or at the very least mitigate its impact and those who believe Brexit will be the greatest thing to happen to the UK since they found oil in the North Sea. This allows the British tabloids to continue their desire for the hardest possible Brexit through mouthpieces like Jacob Rees-Mogg or Nigel Farage.

We have seen some battle lines drawn on divorce payment, the role of the European Court of Justice in any (yet to be agreed) transition period. However, nothing is confirmed. Personally, I believe it will be very hard to the UK to make real, concrete progress until either Theresa May is deposed and a new leader who openly represents one of the afore mentioned factions emerges or, even more dramatically, a General Election is called and Labour emerge, championing a soft Brexit.

Somehow the European Union has claimed enough progress has been made to move to the second stage of the negotiations in December. The Phoney War lasted eight months between the UK’s declaration of war on Germany in September 1939 and Germany’s first offensive on the Low Countries on the 10 May 1940. December will mark approximately eight months of the Brexit talks.

As each day passes with little progress and updates I think it is more likely that the EU negotiators will start the genuine war and publicly deliver some hard truths to the British Government. This is no not really in anyone’s interests (I haven’t even touched upon Ireland in this article though I have speculated on how the internal Tory struggle is dangerous before here).

The problem for the British is that while they bicker and postulate that any bad deal will hurt the remaining 27 EU nations more, the European Union is going about its business in a discreet and diligent manner. They have started to send out signals that they are losing patience with David Davis and co. but I still think they are yet to use any of the weapons at their disposal. Davis publicly calling his European counterparts the “enemy” gives them further justification for harsher measures. The phoney war is going to soon end and I believe it will be the European side who fire the first bullet. This bullet may even be the coup de grâce for May’s shambolic reign as Prime Minister.

There is speculation from a few news sources that China will “compel” Saudi Arabia to pay for oil in Yuan. This would change the face of the global economy and could potentially be looked back on in years to come as one of the first examples of Beijing emerging as the lynchpin of the global economy.

Currently the global oil industry is run through dollars. If you want to buy oil from an OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) member you pay in dollars. This has been the case since the agreements of the early 1970s. It gives the US a lot of influence and leads to many oil-exporting nations currently pegging their currency to the dollar (Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are two examples).

This has been a strategic objective for China for many years now. As their percentage of global demand grows, and exceeds that of the US, they are increasingly dissatisfied with having to manage their outgoing in dollars. I think a number of factors have convinced them that now is the time to up the ante on this bid.

The US has hugely expanded its oil production over the last ten years. In 2006, according to the BP Oil Review 2016, the US was producing 6.8 million barrels of oil daily. By 2016 this figure was 12.4 million. China wants the clout that comes with being the world’s largest oil importer. The US production looks set to continue to rise as Trump is a big advocate in deregulation, which should lead to increased production from fracking.

Trump’s presidency is a factor in other ways as well. His scatter gun approach to diplomacy, and his lack of focus and clear strategic aims have not gone unnoticed in Beijing. A key doctrine of Obama’s foreign policy was a pivot away from the Middle East to Asia Pacific. This hasn’t been fully executed and I think China believes it is possible to increase its influence in the Middle East (commercially for now) while defending its own interests in the Pacific.

There have been other moves afoot recently which seem to indicate that a lot of talks and jockeying for position is happening in global diplomacy behind the scenes. King Salman of Saudi Arabia visited Moscow last week. Must of the global press fixated on the malfunction of his solid gold elevator as he descended from his plane. However, a Saudi King visiting Russia was almost unbelievable until recently.

Russia and Saudi Arabia have been on opposing sides of almost every conflict over the last thirty years, the most recent example of which is the Syrian War. Saudi Arabia now looks to be carving a new niche in the world, under the indirect leadership of the Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. It evidently sees good relations with China as the future cornerstone of this policy.

China has prudently decided to test this non- dollar trading with a key ally initially, Russia. Last Monday, China established its first payment versus payment system for Chinese Yuan and Russian Rouble transactions. This is an early test for further PVP systems with key trading partners on its Belt and Road Initiative.

Moving the global oil economy to Yuan will not be a simple task. The US will not take this lightly and may see it as an act of economic war. There is already a lot of tension simmering between the US and China over claims of “unfair trade practice” by the Chinese. I genuinely believe China has allowed the US/North Korea spat to simmer to distract Trump from this issue.

Attempts to trade oil in Euros by other nations in the past have met with thinly veiled threats (Iran) and perhaps may even have been one of the causes of violent action (Libya).
 
Ultimately though, China is a completely different beast. The US will not be able to intimidate or threaten them into backing down if China believes now is the time to openly challenge US hegemony in such a direct way. The “if” here is crucial. China may continue to discreetly conduct trade agreements, projects and further PVP systems until their power is further consolidated.
​
Currently, with the US being pulled in a hundred directions by an aimless President, China’s power relative to its great rival grows every day without having to do anything. China’s ascent has been built on a singular vision fuelled by trade agreements and discreet investment. They will not reveal their hand until they are certain their position and economic power is unassailable. They only thing certain is that China’s hegemony of the global economy is getting closer every day…

Sometimes I really have to force myself to acknowledge an astute or shrewd move from a politician or a political entity that I dislike. Unfortunately, like many Millennials on the left, I can become a little over indignant at people or groups who espouse opinions contrary to my own views. This is an occasional affair and there are probably a lot more occasions where I can’t see the intelligence behind a certain action because its motive or impact is simply abhorrent or odious to me. This is purely a reflection on my own blinkered views. I have a lot to learn and I realize this more and more every day.

The Spanish Government’s reaction to the Catalan Independence vote was a clear example of me failing to be objective in my analysis. I simply failed to spot the reasons behind Rajoy’s decision to come down hard on the separatists. I lamented the violent reaction over Twitter and smugly ascertained that Rajoy and the Spanish Government are so stupid, that they’ve lost Catalonia forever.  

Now that the dust has settled a little, it’s time to take stock. Catalonia is still a part of Spain today. The violent reaction of Spanish security forces was condemned across Europe by many separatist and socialist parties, however the silence from Europe’s governments was deafening. The EU itself was happy to call this an “situation in Spain”. There were no calls for a boycott of Spain, no real tangible downside for Rajoy and his government.

On the contrary, Rajoy will probably experience a boost in popularity from some regions. His approval rating was already exceptionally low. He was never going to get many more votes in Catalonia so why allow them to question the authority of the Spanish Government. A soft approach would have made him appear even weaker to the rest of Spain and potentially exposed a soft underbelly to be attacked by opposition or the other parties who prop up his tenure.

“Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? One should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved.”

He was never going to be loved by the people of Catalonia so he could try and create some fear and show them the government meant business. Similarly, Rajoy is not loved by the people of Spain but coming down hard on the separatists was never going to really hinder his support from his mainly conservative base. He also correctly guessed that the EU and other major powers around the world would be too busy with their own issues to wade too deeply into the crisis.

I don’t agree or like what Rajoy did. To me it was an attack on democracy and freedom to vote. It was government legalized violence. However, I am not a Spanish constituent, my opinion doesn’t matter to him. Unfortunately, there is every chance that Catalonia won’t be able to move further with their Independence bid despite the Yes result (most Catalonians still poll for remaining in Spain - they simply stayed at home) and that Rajoy will increase his parties vote in the next election.
​
I am not praising Rajoy or lauding his government's actions but understanding the motives of those we disagree with is crucial to challenging their narratives of events and creating compelling counter arguments. I never want to accept that violence can win but at the moment, in Catalonia’s case, it’s looking pretty bleak. Franco died peacefully in his bed at the ripe, old age of 82, I doubt he disapproves of Spain’s actions last week…

*First appeared here on Slugger O' Toole

Since it became clear that Angela Merkel would be re-elected as German Chancellor, there has been a re-focused approach to tax harmonisation within the European Union, driven mostly by Emmanuel Macron's France, along with Germany. This has been covered by numerous media outlets and there is little I can add to the conversation. The argument is that France and Germany who are now both stable and revitalised after momentous national elections, will look to readjust the balance of Europe. It was a major talking point a few years ago and then seemed to die down with numerous crises occurring, like the EU sovereign debt crisis, followed by Brexit.
 
In fact, it looked like Brexit would deter these efforts for a number of years at the very least. However, the certainty of the EU position in the face of a disorganized and often contradictory UK position has probably alleviated some of the fear in Brussels that the EU will suffer more than the UK from Brexit. The buoyant economic situation across Europe has also added to this new-found sense of confidence. This is a welcome change from the near fatalism that pervaded much of the mainstream media concerning the European Project over the last number of years. Unfortunately for Ireland, this has exacerbated the return to the tackling the major thorn at the side of the two most powerful EU economies; the variance in corporation tax that has attracted a disproportionate amount of foreign direct investment to certain peripheral EU states.
 
Ireland is undoubtedly the most high-profile example of a country benefitting from a lower than average corporate tax rate in the EU. It isn’t the only nation though, with some of the so called peripheral nations also attracting companies in this way. These include Cyprus and Malta amongst others. Many of these have suffered in the past from poverty, emigration and elevated levels of unemployment, A story all too familiar to many of our own older generations. The access to the European Union has offered these countries the chance to invigorate their economies, some experiencing growth unheard of in the recent past.
 
Unfortunately for the small nations, now that Germany and France (with the support of some of the other large nations) have realised that the rules are not in their favour they have decided that they want to play a different game. The latest utterings coming from Paris and Berlin are that the Eurozone needs a finance minister, along with a uniform corporate tax rate.
 
The Irish government needs to be firm and stand up for itself here, along with the other smaller nations. Allegedly, we have a lot of goodwill over the unique challenges we face with Brexit. Surely, we can argue, this is not the time for such drastic changes to the daily functions of the EU. Furthermore, these actions would boost the dissenters against the European Union’s creeping power. Many of these protestors have fuelled far right movements in European countries in recent years.
 
Ireland needs to say this isn’t the time and tell Europe that they will use any veto powers available to them to block this. Ireland can then work with the other nations who are more discreetly opposed to a single tax rate to organise a bloc of countries. Ireland is one of the most pro-European nations. Varadkar will need to effectively vocalise that there is difference between being Eurosceptic and believing that these potential steps are a bridge too far.
 
A lot of Varadkar’s appeal to his supports revolves around his frank and outspoken method of communicating.  He is seen as someone who isn’t afraid to mince his words. This is often seen in sharp contrast to his predecessor, Enda Kenny. It’s hard to forget the image of Nicolas Sarkozy rubbing his head, this was not the action of someone speaking to their equal.
 
Varadkar has been a lot more forthright with his criticism of the British government for their approach thus far to Brexit. It would be a lot more of a challenge to be as outspoken against tax harmonisation. However, this does not mean it would be prudent to stay silent. Ireland needs to stay strong on this issue. We cannot back down and allow ourselves to be walked over and dismissed. Let’s hope we have a leader who will fight for Ireland and maybe we can be an inspiration for other nations struggling to find their voice in Brussels.
 

​To many observers of British politics, Boris Johnson launched his bid for leadership of the British Conservative party yesterday. It came in the format of an article in the Telegraph that laid out his vision for Britain’s Brexit.

Many of the positions were at odds with what Theresa May is expected to say in her speech to the European Union in Florence next Friday. The consensus is he has become frustrated with the backtracking by May on a number of issues since her bullish Lancaster Speech on January 17th.

Boris did try and run for leadership already, in the wake of David Cameron’s resignation, post Brexit referendum. He looked to be in pole position until he was brutally betrayed by Michael Gove. Gove basically supported his bid all along. Then, with 2 hours to go until Johnson’s campaign launch, he called Johnson’s campaign manager to let him know he was running himself.

It completely devastated Boris, who immediately called off his bid. Gove didn’t figure in the final running (not many voters of any political ilk want a self serving, Judas-type character as their leader).

I am not so sure if this is a full on bid for power, yet. It is probably a reminder to the more hard line Brexit MPs that he is still with them and could be their man. David Davis still remains the forerunner in betting odds to be the next Tory leader(4/1) and is also viewed as a proponent of a “hard” Brexit.

If Boris is to succeed, a lot of his success will be based on his “charisma”. He is certainly more interesting to listen to than May, Davis or Hammond, though he has offended many over the years with some very questionable phrases and actions (Politico have compiled a list of 11 of his most memorable here).

May’s stock has suffered terribly since the last British General election in June. The early part of the campaign focused on the mantra of her “strong and stable leadership”. This ran concurrently with the ongoing Brexit discussions which were unpredictable with positions changed on an almost daily basis. This was not lost on her opponents or the wider general public.

My ultimate view on this is that Boris no longer has the necessary clout across the spectrum of the Tory MPs to win a leadership contest. He can probably get the 15% of MPs required to force a contest but I think another candidate would then emerge at that stage.

Theresa May is living on borrowed time, that is evident to everyone. Boris is probably not the man to replace her, but he may yet be remembered for starting the open rebellion against Theresa May’s leadership.

*First appeared here on Slugger O' Toole

A lot of eyes in Ireland and Britain will be focused on Catalonia in the upcoming weeks. The vote taking place on October 1st will be an acid test for the integrity of Spain and the aspirations of independence for a number of regions across the European Union.

The referendum was first called for in June 2017 and was formally approved by the Catalan Parliament on the 6th of September. Almost immediately, the Spanish Constitutional Court claimed the referendum was non-binding, stating the Spanish Constitution does not allow Spanish Regions to hold Independence votes.

This should then be a straightforward matter. If the vote is null and void, it doesn’t make sense for it to take place. In 2014, in Catalonia’s last bid for Independence, the Catalan government basically accepted a similar ruling by the Court and then used the ensuing vote for publicity and consensus building.

The Catalans seem a lot more bullish this time around. There is a determination to hold a legitimate referendum, which they will not accept as illegal, and then act on the results after. The interesting aspect for North Ireland will be the aftermath of a successful vote.

It is not entirely clear what will happen in this case. It seems almost impossible for Catalonia to gain independence without the explicit approval of Spain. They would certainly not be able to join the European Union, as every European Union member has a veto, through the Council of the EU.

If the vote allows the Catalans to gain additional leverage in future negotiations or indirectly lead to future approval for a future referendum by the Spanish Government, it may be soon as a very useful tool by Nationalists in Northern Ireland in future years.

This type of positioning and posturing is excellent PR for a cause and nothing gets the masses engaged like an Independence vote, as we saw in Scotland in the run up to their Independence bid.

There is almost certainly not a majority in Northern Ireland who would vote for unification with the Republic in a legal referendum which meets the requirements of the Good Friday Agreement today. There are probably though a few local councils where a Yes vote would be successful today, especially when the result of voting Yes is more symbolic than anything else. Even a Northern Ireland wide vote would be a lot closer in this scenario. There is nothing like telling people they can’t vote on something, that will make them want to.

I think the key point is that a successful Independence bid for Catalonia is very unlikely to come about from the upcoming referendum. However, if an illegal referendum is viewed in the future as the first step in Catalonia’s successful bid for independence, will this then be a precedent for Nationalists in Northern Ireland and further afield?
​
If there is clear evidence in the future that a majority want Northern Ireland to unify with the Republican of Ireland, will the leaders of the Nationalist parties really wait for the tacit approval of the British Government or will we be hearing a lot more about the “Catalan way”.

The war in Syria has been drawing to a slow, violent end for almost two years now. Since Russia started to increase its military support for the Assad regime in September 2015, there has almost been an inevitability that the government forces would hold out and eventually reclaim most of the country. This was accentuated by the deafening silence from most Western nations as rebel held Eastern Aleppo was levelled by the Russian air force. To the ‘moderate’ rebels groups, that had previously been backed by the US, it was a clear signal that they would have to win this war on their own.

That was never going to happen. Syrian forces have continued to retake large swathes of the country. There have been setbacks along the way, the Islamic State retook Palmyra in December 2016 nine months after it had been re-taken by the Syrian army. These setbacks did not fundamentally impact the direction of the war however, fading resistance in the face of a massive Russian/Iranian backed onslaught. The breaking of Islamic State’s siege of Deir Ez-Zor last week is the latest victory in the Syrian War endgame.

Syria was one battleground of a wider struggle for supremacy in the Middle East between Saudi Arabia and Iran. While this was not the immediate cause of the war, it evolved into this as more parties became involved. What became clearer as the war ensued was that Iran, and its allies Hezbollah and the Iraqi government, were willing to commit more military support than the rebel’s backers in Turkey and the Gulf.

If we assume that this trend won’t be reversed, where does Syria and the Assad regime go from here? Large parts of the country are in ruins. According to  Human Rights Watch, by February 2016 470,000 people had been killed, 6.1 million displaced internally and 4.8 million Syrian refugees abroad. This is devastation on an almost unprecedented scale in modern times.

Atrocities have been committed by all sides. This is not a defence of Bashir al-Assad and the Syrian government. According to the United Nations, the government have committed multiple war crimes. The question I want to raise is what options are open to the government now. Can Syria come back into the fold and reclaim legitimacy in the West or is destined to be a devastated, war-torn pariah state for the next decade?

Syria doesn't have the benefit of major oil reserves. It will struggle to attract the financial support necessary to rebuild most of the infrastructure that has been destroyed. The fact that there hasn’t been a regime change, immediately makes this a different case to the other devastated nation we’e seen in the last two decades like Afghanistan, Iraq and to a lesser extent, Libya.

The Western world is still some time away from re-recognizing the legitimacy of the Assad government. Syria’s key allies are not in a position to offer the financial support required, particularly as they are involved in their own domestic and international struggles. Russia is a longtime ally of Syria and their use of the Mediterranean port of Tartous was a major incentive for their increased military involvement mentioned above. However the sanctions imposed on Russia have taken their toll.

There is the potential for China to lead the rebuilding of the country. Throughout the war China has been quite muted in its criticism of the Syrian regime. It has almost vetoed as many UN resolutions against Syria as Russia has. In recent times China has made many new allies across the developing world, particularly in Africa, by funding huge infrastructure projects without making political demands from the reciprocants.

The Syrian government could also try and endear itself to the more right wing political parties in Europe by offering to take back Syrian refugees in exchange for funding. While the feasibility of this may be negligible it could be a smart PR move. In fact, there has been a noticeable decline in criticism in Europe of the regime as the number of Islamic State inspired attacks have increased across the continent. Each atrocity has helped the regime drive the narrative that ‘we are fighting the same terrorists together’.

Ultimately it has been a terrible seven years for the Syrian people. There can be no excuse for the atrocities committed by the Syrian government. If we assume that their victory in the Syrian War is now a fait accompli , the future direction of Syria could be an interesting measure of how far the US has retreated in its supremacy of the Middle East as it tries to continue its Pacific pivot. If this is the case the question is who will fill this vacuum? Will Syria be able to leverage this strategic battle or continue to be an unfortunate pawn in this modern version of the Great Game?

***first featured on Slugger O Toole @ sluggerotoole.com/2017/09/08/where-do-syria-and-assad-go-from-here/

​