Provincial government

M. Ferguson

Hi. I’ve been lurking on these boards for a while now so I thought I’d post something.

I’m from Northern Ireland and given the trials and tribulations of establishing a form of government here one thing baffles me about the Republic. Why, that is, there appears to have never been any demand for provincial government? Yet, such a development could be hugely beneficial for Ireland.

In such a centralised country like Ireland – and the UK until recently – there has always been a claim that central government is favouring one region over another. In the early decades after independence the Devalera led government appeared to have a very rural/western focus, much to the chagrin of Dubliners. Over more recent decades the reverse appears to be true, or at least in the eyes of those in the West. Whether either outlook was/is anything more than apparent is really beside the point. What matters is that the perception has existed from the outset that the government has favoured one part of the country more than the other.

Needless to say, this has a damaging effect on society as a whole leading to enmity between different parts of the country, creating a fertile environment for one to become alienated, feeling that government never does anything for them. Worse such cynicism can lead a group to feel that what’s supposed to be ‘their’ government is actively pursuing objectives that run counter to their interests. Bitterness can often develop; combined with a loss of confidence that voting’s pointless as little will ever change. Any nation needs a section of its population burdened with such feelings like a hole in the head.

Look, for example, at the relationship between Scotland or Northern England and Southern England over the past three or four decades. With the decline of heavy industry/manufacturing in the former two and the resulting emigration to the booming south, the perception has grown steadily that Westminster and Whitehall care little for what happens ‘north of the Watford gap’. This may not be the case, indeed there’s much to suggest the contrary, but the perception has still taken route. Any number of damaging consequences have developed as a result. Primary amongst these being alienation, apathy and a loss of confidence. Politics in Scotland and Northern England evolved to reflect this mindset as well. MPs and councillors increasingly bemoaned their fate of terminal decline, demanding that they receive more and more handouts from the south. However, by not having any responsibility to raise this extra cash councils often spent recklessly – requiring ever more transfers to fulfil their ‘responsibilities’. Westminster responded increasingly by curtailing much of their powers in favour of centralisation, handing council responsibilities over to unaccountable quangos and state agencies. These bodies had even less need to be responsible: just look at the debacle of English Heritage’s battles over planning with councils since its inception! An exchange of power from councils too small, parochial and reckless to centralised unaccountable quangos has simply replaced one problem with another. In the process democracy was undermined and enmity between north and south increased. This reached its peak under Margaret Thatcher. Forever centralising she was seen as heading an English government in Scotland and one solely for the South East in Northern England.

Hence the devolution project. Although it can hardly be considered much of a success so far, it has led to one welcome development - a watershed of opinion in Scotland. Scots have realised rather quickly that blaming England for all their ills achieves little. The buck now stops at Holyrood for continued economic stagnation north of the Tweed. They’ve had to acknowledge responsibility for their own well being, if you like. Indeed, many have concluded that this development towards responsible government will not be complete until the Scottish Executive has a greater degree of fiscal control.

On the other hand, devolution has still to get off the ground in N. England and it might remain forever a pipe dream. The problem is that the Northern English simply don’t identify with the regions that central government has contrived for them. Indeed, how unearth could anyone ever feel passionately about ‘Go – North East England’! The name alone is clearly the work of a Whitehall committee. So the devolution referenda will quite possibly fail in these regions returning the English north to a state of limbo - a feeling of helpless decline and yet not knowing what to do about it.

To return again to Ireland, a similar parallel to what happened for decades across the water appears to be emerging here as well. With the decline of agriculture in the West and the meteoric levels of growth in the East during the 90s, there has been much emigration from the former to the later. For that matter this pattern has continued unabated for much longer as job creation in the West has failed to match that in the greater Dublin area. As in the north of Britain, Westerners have increasingly come to believe that Leinster House governs for Dublin only and that their plight of further economic and population decline – actual or relative – is helpless. Whether this bias in government exists or not, a belief in it can only be damaging. Not only does it damage national cohesion through Western animosity towards a supposedly cosseted Dublin population it also enables Western local governments to absolve themselves of responsibility and blame central government for much of their problems. This can only lead to poorer performance damaging voter confidence in local government and the prospects for the region as a whole to revive itself. The result has been increasing demands by Westerners for the Dail to ‘do something’ to balance regional development. Various responses have been typical of a central government. The national spatial strategy was designed to encourage economic growth at strategic points across the country. However, so many locations were chosen – fearing an electoral backlash otherwise – that none will acquire the critical mass to thrive in the long term. Another is the tried and tested method across the water of devolving various government departments to different parts of the country from Dublin. This was a glaring long-term failure of the Thatcher government. Its effect was only transient as the children of the bureaucrats relocated in the 80s are now emigrating back to the South East as there are no jobs for them in the regions their parents moved to. Furthermore, an ironic consequence of such action by Westminster is anger in London that the government is forever responding to carping in the regions and ignoring them in the process. Such feelings seem to be prevalent in Dublin too.

The problems outlined above are the failings IMO of a centralised state. County or city council government is too small and parochial to be given any fiscal responsibility or be relied upon to plan economically on a strategic basis. Weak and ineffective councils are likely to see a continued accretion of power by central government and unaccountable quangos. The ultimate result of all this is a viscous cycle of alienation caused by economic underperformance resulting from councils powerless to do anything leading to central government stepping in, often making matters worse, leading to further alienation. And so it continues.

The answer appears to be regional government with real responsibilities. Either the West continues to go down the North of England route with the decline, helplessness and blame for central government that that entails. Or it can be given real power at provincial level combined crucially with some degree of fiscal responsibility like in Scotland. Forced to take charge of their own affairs blame for the East could decrease dramatically helping to stymie a potentially dangerous cynicism towards central government. Not only would Dublin benefit in seeing the West examine itself for increased performance as opposed to simply demanding government help – there would be real gains for the provinces too. The Provinces would have real power to stimulate growth, develop infrastructure etc.

Such a plan of devolution could really work in Ireland where it looks likely to fail in England. Unlike the latter Ireland already has regions in the form of Provinces that people can identify with and which have there own individual characteristics. Each has a clearly defined area and has existed for centuries. They have flags, rugby teams and the GAA organises its championships through them. These are features that central government could never hope to devise. It is essential that any area given some degree of self-governance have a population that identifies with it. This is ultimately why nation states, counties etc. have legitimacy. Provincial government could also have that electoral approval, but unlike smaller entities such as county councils provinces would have the population/area necessary to make a real difference.

After all, with devolution developing in the UK, Ireland will be one of the few if not the only nation in the developed world having no level of regional government. Surely, all the rest can’t have got it wrong?

Apologies for the verbose nature of this post and I’d stress that most of it is just my opinion.

Lennoxschips

I think Countuy Councils should be scrapped and replaced with more powerful local governments that cover a broader area. Cork, Kerry and Limerick County councils could merge, for example.

Moriarty

Havent really thought it through fully, but i have a feeling it would turn into yet another bureaucracy that this country could do without. Take a look at the farce that is the health board system as an example.

M. Ferguson

Hi Lennoxschips

I don't think it would be a good idea to abolish county councils in any plan to create regional government. People identify strongly with their counties in Ireland and would most likely be hostile to their abolition. Indeed, studying what has happened in the UK demonstrates how damaging to devolution it could be. Scotland and Wales were given a degree of self-governance, leaving their county councils intact. However, proposals for devolution in the north of England have met opposition because they would see county councils abolished or made next to irrelevent.

There just doesn’t seem to be a need. Scotland, Wales, even NI, Australian and American states all will/have county and city councils along with self governance. Overall provincial administration would be difficult without a lower much more localised tier of government.

Are you from Munster? Has there ever/or is there any desire for the province having an assembly and executive with certain powers? The problem I believe you would encounter by simply grouping Limerick, Cork and Kerry together is that the region they form has no particular identity. Whereas, if you add in Clare, Tipperary and Waterford you can then have something people can really identify with – a province. As I said in my last post it has a long history, unique characteristics etc. This is crucial as the debacle of creating 'Go - North East England' demonstrates. The former three together would have no real identity - what would they be called, have they a crest, symbol, sports teams etc. As in the case of Oz., German or Canadian states/provinces people must be able to associate with a region that has a real autonomous image, if you like.

Furthermore, a grouping of only three councils together would still not contain a large enough population/area to have real economic weight. Better all of Munster! For regional government to work each executive/assembly would need real powers over planning, infrastructure and some fiscal autonomy to induce responsible administration. A mere collection of two or three county councils would still be too small/parochial to make use of these powers. Indeed, to make a real case for devolution with central government the entities envisaged would need to be large enough to earn confidence that they wouldn’t simply become irresponsible glorified county councils. This would also be of vital importance in any regional/provincial referendum that would be required to gain the assent of the people to be governed by such an entity.

Paddy20

So the Province of Ulster would include counties from a divided Country, is this what you are really proposing?.. A possible solution to the Northern Ireland fiasco!.

M. Ferguson

Moriarty

I agree that devolution could result in creating a needless tier of extra bureaucracy, it’s by no means certain to be a guaranteed panacea for disparities in regional development. For that matter, in this age of cynicism, such a plan would have to overcome much initial scepticism from the public. So far in the UK there has been a great deal of disillusionment and even hostility towards the process. That’s why it’s essential to create a system that has the potential to actually function properly and most important of all to take a long term view. After all, American and Australian states often had a rocky ride to begin with, many only achieving success along time after their creation. But one salient point should be remembered in any such debate: in countries where regional government is successful the spread of wealth across those nations is much more uniform. Compare Australia or Germany to Ireland and the UK. The former two have a federal structure and consequently it would seem wealthy cities and areas in many different parts. Indeed, the average wealth/quality of life varies little from state to state. All are competitive relative to each other and attract their fair share of emigrants either from elsewhere in the nation or from abroad. Furthermore, the federal structure in each is often credited with having enabled poorer areas to catch up and close the gap on their wealthier counterparts over the past few decades. After WW2 southern Germany was the poor rural neighbour to the wealthy industrialised north. However, with a large degree of power and fiscal autonomy the southern states were able to develop policies for economic growth that suited their particular needs allowing them – once poor Bavaria in particular – to outperform the richer north. A similar pattern occurred in Australia; indeed it’s still happening right now. The virtually once unpopulated backwater of Western Australia has far outpaced New South Wales and Victoria in terms of economic growth for some time now. Queensland too; both seeing their populations rapidly close the gap on their once dominant south eastern peers in the process as well.

Compare the German and Australian experiences to that of Ireland and the UK and you see a startling difference. Under a centralised single administration, both nations have developed in a lopsided manner. The west in the former and the north in the latter have fallen gradually further and further behind in the economic and population growth stakes. Why has this happened? I’m convinced that a single central government will never be able to co ordinate an equal spread of growth across any nation. This has been clearly demonstrated in the UK and Ireland. As I’ve mentioned they tend to centralise too many powers, leading to ill thought out, often unaccountable in the form of quangos and overly politicised decisions/planning that often only worsen already skewed patterns of development. Instead, the provinces should have their own executives/governments batting solely for them as in almost every other nation in the developed world. Would a Connacht provincial government with responsibility for planning have delayed the development of the Corrib gas field? Would Cork City’s infrastructure be as poorly developed if a Munster provincial government existed? There are examples of issues delayed or undecided right across the country with no strong body to push for their completion!

This is not to suggest that Dublin doesn’t care about the provinces, it’s just that it doesn’t have enough time or regional attachment to focus on their development in the way a provincial government could. Indeed, why should it? National government has to consider the well being of the whole country, not any particular region. And so as in the US, Canada, Australia, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Switzerland etc, etc. let it continue to focus on matters of national importance. But give regional development to administrations that can really focus on it, ie. Provincial governments.

M. Ferguson

Moriarty again

Take a look at the farce that is the health board system as an example.

The health board issue is ideal example of how provincial government would be advantageous to the current system or what has been proposed to replace it. Currently, each local authority has its own health board. This has resulted in much duplication, boards responsible for too small a population to be effective and a damaging effect on council politics. As councils have few powers and responsibilities councillors often focus inordinately on health board issues during election campaigns. This in turn forces TDs to focus on county health boards issues as well, leading central government to throw more money towards inevitable duplication and an already inefficient system. How unearth can government develop an effective health service when trying to please a multitude of health boards, its policies skewed further by those in marginal seats? This doesn’t even begin to cover the potential for numerous independent TDs elected on the sole issue of more funding for their county health board or to fight the down grading of a county hospital – a development debilitating for the party structure required in representative democracy. A collection of independent TDs elected on single issue platforms make for poor oppositions and even worse coalition governments during a full term when a broad range of issues must be examined!

The alternative proposed – four single health boards – would remove the issue from councils that are to small thus reducing much duplication and the unbalanced priorities in county council elections. Not to mention TDs taking more of a nation wide view of health care as opposed to one that considers little beyond their constituency boundaries.

However, the criticism of such a new scheme is that it will produce a democratic deficit concerning issues of health care across the country. Where once the status of health boards were of immense importance in local government politics, the needs of the new much larger boards will largely by taken care of by unaccountable bureaucracy.

Provincial governments could solve this conundrum: how to wed fewer more efficient health boards with some democratic input from the areas they oversee. If each province had one health board with ultimate control resting with the elected provincial executive you would then have a large enough area/population over which to plan strategically and the democratic legitimacy to do so. The result would be much more rational planning and democratic accountability, halting the possibility of a plethora of single-issue (health care) candidates in future general elections to the Dail.

M. Ferguson

Hi Paddy

So the Province of Ulster would include counties from a divided Country, is this what you are really proposing?.. A possible solution to the Northern Ireland fiasco!.

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll try and answer what I think you're asking.

There’s no reason why all the provinces in the Republic would have to accept a degree of self-government simultaneously. Indeed, this would involve imposing such a development upon them, which is the last thing anyone would wish or which any government not seeking to commit hara-kiri would even consider. For the long term viability of provincial government its creation must come from the bottom up. Legitimacy must be sought and conferred on such a proposal through a referendum in each province. While Leinster House could breath life into the idea by outlining any such devolved structure that might subsequently arise, without grass routes support regional government will never get off the ground, let alone sustain support through any initial difficulties. Groups in each province must take up the idea appealing for support: only if and when such agreement can be found should self-governance proceed from the drawing board.

However, there’s a possibility that the approval garnished by any campaign might only be strong enough to progress to a referendum in one or two provinces. Furthermore, a referendum could still fail in a province where the idea appeared to be popular. Nevertheless, success in a pole could be forthcoming somewhere. This might see provincial government established in only Munster, for example, to begin with. This mightn’t be a bad prospect, allowing the rest of the country to assess its outcome, maybe reconsidering if the provincial administration was deemed to be effective.

What I’ve written above demonstrates how flexible the implementation of devolution could be. This is how the process is panning out across the water with referenda only being offered in regions of England where the idea has support. This brings me to the three counties of Ulster you mention. Any form of self-government for them could not be contemplated at this time. They’re not contiguous making effective administration difficult and have a combined population too small for such a government to be effective. But there’s no need for them to be given self-government like elsewhere as devolution doesn’t have to be implemented everywhere – instead, only where it can work and has support. There are already precedents for such a scenario. The Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory are under the direct administration of the Australian national government. The former has I believe already been offered statehood in a referendum which it rejected. If there is support in future for self-governance there will likely be another referendum. Many American states and Canadian provinces also had to gain a certain number of inhabitants and produce enough support for the status they now enjoy. Moreover, direct rule for now for the part of Ulster under Dublin control highlights another potential benefit that could be derived from provincial government.

Unlike the contents of this thread, the constitutional issue that has exercised minds on this island probably more than any other is the partition of the island as a whole. One day a majority in Northern Ireland may vote to join the Republic. However, by then – despite the current difficulties – NI may have a stable form of government with control over much of its own affairs including fiscal responsibility. If the Republic were still as centralised then as it is now it would be virtually impossible to integrate NI fully into its structure like any other province. On top of this, while there might be support for a united Ireland here, there would most likely be deep resistance to becoming as powerless as other provinces are at present. So, the alternative for Dublin would be to give NI special status, allowing it to govern much of itself while retaining direct rule over the rest of Ireland. Such an outcome would likely provoke resentment throughout other provinces due to the inequality of such a settlement. People in Cork might justifiably ask why should much of Ulster receive extensive rights denied to Munster. A peculiar constitutional arrangement like this would hardly favour the development of a cohesive national bond. More likely, it would foster a ‘them and us’ dichotomy. If the West wasn’t already feeling alienated by then, seeing preferential treatment for much of Ulster would probably see it boil over. So, in the end, either devolution to provincial administration would be a prerequisite of Irish unity or demands for it would emerge soon after. Better the former, than a chaotic reactionary implementation in a sort of belated provincial attempt to get even! As for Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan they could simply come under the jurisdiction of the provincial government the NI executive might one day become.

dod

Good Lord, and I thought *I* wrote long posts!

Cork

I would completely agree with the need for Provincial government. I would think that County & Town Councils need to be abolished to be replaced by Provincial government - with directly elected mayors.

County Councils looking at the needs of their county need to be replaced looking at the future needs of the region.

Victor

Originally posted by M. Ferguson
Currently, each local authority has its own health board.

No, of 29 county councils and 5 city councils (borough and townare all subsidiary to county councils) there are only 10 health boards.

The international ideal for local government is for a population of about 70,000. The problem in Ireland is that councils vary from 30,000 to 500,000 (or as low as 1,200 in the case of town councils). Too many people don't actually live in the council area with which they identify (40% of Cork city dwellers don't live in the city). For Navan it's 80%.

What is needed is a balance of local and regional government (about 6 different schemes are used for regional government). For example, the Southern health Board region could be a region, with a series of councils under it - North Kerry, South Kerry, West Cork, North/East Cork and Cork City (extending to include the entire harbour area). Likewise Leitrim should be merged into Sligo County council. That way the regions can decide on policy, while localities can decide on how to implement it.

Separately, as councillors (not town or borough councillors) vote in Senate elections several area, especially Dublin City are hugely discriminated against. Depsite having 15 times the population, Dublin has less than 3 times the senate votes that Leitrim and Lonford have.

Cork

I think Cork roughly 8 Town Councils. I don't think Limerick has any. How can Limerick operate at all.

M. Ferguson

Cork

I would think that County & Town Councils need to be abolished to be replaced by Provincial government

At first glance it seems that abolishing county councils in favour of provincial assemblies would make most sense. However, I believe it’s a non-starter. For devolution to ever occur support for it must exist in the region to be given self-government. Because regional government could take years to bed down – it’s a process most likely to bear fruit only in the long term – the government would never contemplate imposing it on a province. Can you imagine the backlash against the party in power during the inevitable initial rocky patch? No, Dublin would only ever venture such a proposal if it were an assured vote winner in the province(s). This means that to drum up support for such a project and in any subsequent referendum campaign virtually every institution/influential body in the provinces considered would have to be in favour. So, a plan to replace local authorities with regional government would pit the very group who could be most instrumental in pushing for devolution against the whole idea. For evidence of this, the situation across the water provides a sobering reference point. In Scotland, the county/city councils, having their continued existence guaranteed, provided vital support for devolution in the referendum. On the other hand, in England local councils have whipped up much cynicism towards regional government. Why? Because they will be abolished or have their powers greatly diminished. By attempting to abolish councils you needlessly create a democratic martyr that could scupper the whole idea. It’s really too much – all sail and no anchor. People tend to be small-c conservative concerning constitutional matters. Removing county councils alongside the introduction of a new form of government would be seen as too much at once, forcing them to choose between the two.

However, take a glance at other nations with provincial/state government. Do the shire counties cause South Australia State difficulties? Is Oregon ungovernable due to county and city councils? There’s no evidence to suggest so. You see, in Ireland councils have probably fewer powers than their counterparts anywhere else (except NI, and that’s been a disaster). They should be allowed to keep the few they have. An over-arching provincial government could never hope to replace local authorities, attempting to micro-manage what were formerly the minutiae of day to day issues they once dealt with. Instead, as is the case elsewhere, provinces could be given the many powers councils don’t and never could have.

Take planning as an example. As before, councils could draw up periodical development plans, dealing with subsequent applications. What would be different would be the existence of a provincial cabinet minister with a portfolio containing planning/development. S/he would replace An Bord Pleanala as having the final say over plans. The minister could force several councils located next to each other to draw up a development plan covering their combined areas. S/he could intervene to push something through or halt a development. Furthermore, the role could enable the minister to draw up a regional development plan co-ordinating much more strategic development and forcing council plans to comply with it. These powers would see rational and coherent long term planning, instead of the current almost ad hoc system. Crucially, the decisions of an elected provincial executive would have far more legitimacy with residents than An Bord Pleanala – a state bureaucracy. On top of all this the provinces could have their own infrastructure budgets, taking over control of transport development entirely from Dublin. In tandem with planning/compulsory purchase powers and control over the role out of infrastructure development would be given a whole new strategic outlook.

M. Ferguson

Hi Victor

No, of 29 county councils and 5 city councils (borough and townare all subsidiary to county councils) there are only 10 health boards.

So there are only 10 health boards. I live in Northern Ireland so most likely don’t have the same level of knowledge concerning service administration in the Republic that most posters on these boards probably have.

Nevertheless, I believe my point still stands. These are to be reduced into 4 boards (again correct me if I’m wrong). Surely it would make most sense to combine this rationalisation with devolution. Each province could be assigned a health board – combining the goals of less duplication and more efficiency with democratic accountability in the form of a provincial gov. to oversee it. Each province would have a minister with healthcare in their portfolio.

The international ideal for local government is for a population of about 70,000. The problem in Ireland is that councils vary from 30,000 to 500,000 (or as low as 1,200 in the case of town councils). Too many people don't actually live in the council area with which they identify (40% of Cork city dwellers don't live in the city). For Navan it's 80%.

Local authorities could certainly be rationalised to cover a more adequate population and an area containing inhabitants who identify with them. However, this shouldn’t stand in the way of provincial government. Indeed any such rearrangement could be carried out by the provinces themselves. As in Oz and the US, each province could draw up its own constitution, outlining its powers as distinct from those of the national government. This constitution could also outline local authority powers/sizes etc. and how any such alteration to those might be effected. Importantly, any reorganisation of councils would be best left until after referenda for provincial gov. As I’ve outlined earlier, local authority support would be critical in achieving support for such a proposition. Pitting one against the other - even if there was no real threat to some form of local administration - could scupper the whole thing. Such a playoff would inevitably undermine support in a referendum campaign.

For example, the Southern health Board region could be a region, with a series of councils under it - North Kerry, South Kerry, West Cork, North/East Cork and Cork City (extending to include the entire harbour area).

For regional gov. to ever be effective and for voters to identify with it the area concerned has got to be big enough and have an autonomous image. I think the area you mention would be too small to be given real powers and so become anything more than a glorified council. It’s also got no self- image. Better all of Munster together with one legislature and executive having control over all the regional responsibilities that could be devolved to it.

Paddy20

Hi M. Ferguson,

While I find your thread very interesting and educational in some
respects. Let me just state that us human beings have a tendency too over complicate lifes issues, some of which have no answer.

Ireland being a small Country with a very turbulent history. Now imho needs a proper Government rather than a number of Provincial ones. By that I mean we should be considering the introduction of a new Irish Constitution, wiping the slate clean and starting over, as a very active member of the European Union.

Corruption, became a way of life here and it is time the door was slammed in the faces of the corrupt and the powerful.

This initiative must obviously start from the grass roots, and perhaps someone with your obvious gifts could give some thought to how this Country could go about becoming a State where its citizens could be proud of their elected representatives and all of the Provinces of Ireland could be coherently and honestly managed by 1 [One] central Government

I have no idea how to clear out the scumbags, but I would love too read some constructive suggestions?..

Paddy20;)

M. Ferguson

Victor again

Separately, as councillors (not town or borough councillors) vote in Senate elections several area, especially Dublin City are hugely discriminated against.

Again, being from NI, I am not fully aware of the methods involved in electing Sinead Eireann. Maybe you could enlighten me as to how it works? I believe, however, that it is filled with appointees and those who are elected by certain groups in Irish society – such as universities. Such a system precludes the upper chamber from having any real power. A body that's not elected will never carry legitimacy with the general populace. Voters could rightly ask why such a group should have a say over their lives when its members carry no democratic mandate. Ireland is a democracy after all. So it’s likely to be forever condemned to an existence as a toothless talking shop and kindergarten for would be TDs. This, however, has a detrimental effect on governance in Ireland.

Leinster House is de facto a unicameral legislature – the senate having little real power. As Ireland is also a parliamentary democracy the executive and legislature in the Dail are combined. Such a system heavily favours an excessively powerful government whilst militating against proper scrutiny of legislation. Just think about it. With a whipped lower chamber, in which the TDs in the governing coalition have the promise of promotion to cabinet if they’re compliant, you will never have real scrutiny of/opposition to bad legislation – any legislation for that matter! So how can governance in a parliamentary democracy be improved? By weakening the predominance of the chamber in which the executive sits.

This could best be done by introducing/strengthening a number of constitutional checks and balances. The following might help achieve this aim:

A powerful judiciary prepared to test proposed laws against those currently on the statute books as well as legal conventions/precedents, and in Ireland’s case a written constitution. However, Ireland’s Supreme Court appears to be much more supine in its dealings with government than its counterparts in Canada and the US, to name two examples. This could be due to the method employed to appoint it. Are its members selected by an independent commission or are they appointees? The latter are usually more feckless. Furthermore, of even more importance is the length of/control of their term of incumbency. If they have long terms which the gov. has no say over they can afford to be much more robust. Finally, there needs to be almost a culture of standing up to gov. for an active judiciary to develop. This last point highlights another benefit of provincial gov. that I’ll come to latter.

A real bicameral legislature. This requires the second/upper chamber to have real power: the ability to strike down proposed bills or alter them. It mustn’t, it should be said, have too much power or become an equal to the chamber containing the executive. This would be a recipe for legislative gridlock and lame duck governments if the opposition controlled the senate. An acceptable balance must be found. But before even beginning to discuss such matters the second chamber must be in a position to gain powers – at the moment it isn’t. It simply hasn’t any legitimacy to govern, as ordinary voters – one man, one vote and all of that), don’t elect it! This is where provincial government ties in nicely.

Each province could be allocated a share of seats in Sinead Eireann proportionate to its population. Senate terms could be fixed; unlike the Dail a hung chamber would not be a barrier to the scrutiny of bills. As an executive doesn’t have to be formed there’d be no need to return to the polls if the governing party/coalition failed to gain a majority or form a government. Furthermore, senate terms could be longer – maybe they already are – allowing for members to accumulate more experience and expertise. Such a change would have numerous benefits. A senate with a democratic mandate giving it the legitimacy to exercise real power to hold the government to account. It would properly reflect the spread of population – more accurately looking after Dublin’s interests due to Leinster having the greatest share of seats. However, by channelling senate elections through the provinces Munster and Connacht would benefit too. All senators would bare in mind the impact upon the regions they represent when considering new entries to the statute books.

As I mentioned earlier Provincial governments might very well encourage a culture of standing up to overweening central government. Many American and Australian states, not to mention Canadian provinces, take their federal governments to their respective national supreme courts over legislative matters. Combined with an active Supreme Court and a second chamber with actual powers, this might lead to more thought on the part of the executive when devising new laws. It would also hopefully stymie the increasing preference for reactionary knee-jerk legislation that’s emerging in Ireland. A symptom, I’m convinced, of a centralised state with an omnipotent executive restricted by few checks or balances.

Victor

Originally posted by M. Ferguson
Victor again Again, being from NI, I am not fully aware of the methods involved in electing Sinead Eireann. Maybe you could enlighten me as to how it works? I believe, however, that it is filled with appointees and those who are elected by certain groups in Irish society – such as universities.

11 - Nominated by Taoiseach
..6 - Voted by University graduates
43 - Nominated by vocational panels, but elected by politicians

---

60 - total

Of the politicians all outgoing Senators, current TDs and City / County (not Borough or Town) councillors can vote - hence abolishing the dual mandate will have an effect on future Senates.

In part, the upper houses in many countries are largely talking shops. It is helpful to have somewhere with people who aren't dependant on (the fickleness of) public support. Germany is an example, where the upper house is elected from by Lander (states) parliaments.

Imagine: some countries have (supervising) presidents elected by parliaments and shock horror!!! constitutions that can be changed by parliaments.

M. Ferguson

Paddy again

Let me just state that us human beings have a tendency too over complicate lifes issues, some of which have no answer.

Ireland being a small Country with a very turbulent history. Now imho needs a proper Government rather than a number of Provincial ones.

It’s true that the constitutional changes I’m proposing would produce a more complicated system. Many people, I’m sure, would initially react as you have. It’s a fair point. Why complicate matters? However, I believe, as my previous point largely alludes to, that both Ireland and the UK have systems of government that are actually too simple. Such systems result in very powerful executives – the UK (having a very similar set of democratic arrangements to Ireland) has often been referred to as an elective dictatorship. Between general elections there is little to stop the government doing as it pleases – short of fear of defeat when voters next take to the polling booths! History demonstrates that this threat is still woefully inadequate to improve the quality of legislation. Unlike elected representatives and the judiciary – as well as regional governments – the average voter doesn’t have the time or possess the knowledge to study, let alone remember at election time, every new entry to the statute books. Ergo, there is a need for a greater range of constitutional checks and balances. Not to stop legislative or bring to halt a coalition's programme for government but simply to improve those laws it puts forward. A system with more scrutiny would require more thought reducing the possibility for rash legislation - often enacted for no other reason than to be seen to be doing something in response to opinion polls.

I’m not sure I understand your second point. Certainly Ireland has had a turbulent history, but so too have other countries. This hasn’t prohibited them from developing regional government or a greater number of constitutional checks. Indeed, many of the constitutional arrangements of the countries I’ve mentioned were put in place during the most tumultuous of times. The colonies that came together to form the USA framed their constitution not long after winning independence from Britain. Most pertinent of all, this was also the environment in which Ireland’s current constitution was formed. Germany’s constitution was penned after its defeat in WW2. France’s numerous republics were formed in response to the shifting fortunes of the nation. In fact, many countries formed constitutions having passed through an unstable period. They are, after all, designed to provide structure and stability – not to mention better governance amongst other things – in direct response to previous experiences.

Again, I’m not sure why proper governance cannot be achieved in tandem with devolution. Indeed, that’s why I’m proposing such an idea. I believe that provincial governments can actually improve, amongst many benefits, the running of Ireland. Furthermore, Ireland would still retain its national government in Dublin in any such constitutional change!

By that I mean we should be considering the introduction of a new Irish Constitution

By ushering in provincial government and possibly making substantial changes to how the senate is constituted, the constitution would have to be altered considerably. Otherwise, without constitutional protection, a future gov. could easily abolish fledgling regional assemblies that might be experiencing teething problems. Indeed, few provinces would dare confront Leinster House over legislation affecting them if their status could easily be diminished. The opportunity for a check on centralised power would be lost without their existence enshrined in Bunreacht na hEireann.

wiping the slate clean and starting over, as a very active member of the European Union.

I agree, Paddy, it’s sometimes very tempting to start afresh – what would you propose? However, while the ideas I’ve outlined are radical in an Irish context, in that they’ve never been tried here before, I would be wary of attempting to devise an entirely new system. It was said of the American constitution that it was all sail and no anchor. Fortunately, for Americans it hasn’t served them too badly. The problem with too much change – as opposed to more gradual evolution – is that you could lose what strengths the current system already contains while pursuing a path that could lead to unforseen difficulties. On top of this, it must be borne in mind the naturally small-c conservative instincts many voters possess. Attempt too much and they might reject everything. Instead, I believe a more incremental approach should be adopted. First, provincial gov. – possibly one province at a time – then maybe local authority reorganisation and ultimately changes to Sinead Eireann. Leaving a considerable period of time between each new development – remember, to be successful such changes need to be thought through fully. After all, they are in part designed to prompt a more thoughtful approach to governance!


As for Ireland’s activity in the European Union, again I can’t see an increase in this precluding provincial government. Some of the Union’s most active members contain self-governing regions.

Corruption, became a way of life here and it is time the door was slammed in the faces of the corrupt and the powerful.

Corruption is a little bit OT, but maybe you could start a new thread to discuss the topic! It’s certainly one of considerable importance and would certainly be interesting to focus on. However, to an certain extent, there is a nexus between the subject and provincial government/constitutional reorganisation. By devolving power to other parts of the system, central gov. would require more thought and would be subject to more opposition as well as scrutiny. This might allow for corruption at the highest levels to be more easily revealed. With an active supreme court, senate and provincial governments analysing their activity, ministers might think twice before succumbing to impropriety. Furthermore, with ultimate planning powers in the provinces in the hands of regional executives there’d be little opportunity for unscrupulous planning decisions. Unlike at council level, you’d have a real opposition ready to expose such behaviour. Moreover, the province's minister with responsibility for such matters could intervene to investigate suspicious local authority land deals.

M. Ferguson

Victor

11 - Nominated by Taoiseach
..6 - Voted by University graduates
43 - Nominated by vocational panels, but elected by politicians

---

60 - total

Of the politicians all outgoing Senators, current TDs and City / County (not Borough or Town) councillors can vote - hence abolishing the dual mandate will have an effect on future Senates.

Thank you for the information. The fact the Taoiseach can nominate 11 – just under a fifth – gives the executive a great deal of influence in the make up of the upper house. Is this quota reselected every time the position of Taoiseach changes or just after a GE? For that matter, are senate term lengths fixed or tied to Dail terms? I presume there are more than 43 nominated by vocational panels otherwise there’d be no need for the politicians to elect them.

The problem with such this chamber is the exclusion of the electorate from determining its make up (it would also appear to be unrepresentative of the Irish populace even in its current appointment based format). I doubt voters would ever find it acceptable for the senate to assume real powers whilst it has no democratic mandate. For this to happen anyone should be allowed to stand for election, as is the case with the Dail.

In part, the upper houses in many countries are largely talking shops. It is helpful to have somewhere with people who aren't dependant on (the fickleness of) public support.

Many upper chambers in other countries may well be talking shops but surely that doesn’t mean such a state of affairs is beneficial. If anything, they simple have the same problem Ireland suffers from – a lack of effective legislative scrutiny. I’d agree that it would be helpful to have input from those who aren’t dependent on public support. The problem is that such people could never gain real power (without the restraining influence of democracy would you want them to?) or withstand challenges to it. Who, if they weren’t elected, would have the confidence to attempt to halt or significantly modify legislation? If they were successful there’d be public uproar – which in a democracy would be quite justified. So, the only role the upper chamber will ever have is one of fairly toothless input which, lets face, could easily be ignored by the executive.

What’s required is a system that’s democratic but avoids as much as is possible the fickle and myopic nature of the voting public. Hence, long terms and possibly term limits. These measures would allow senators to take a farsighted approach, without the constant need to refer to their poll ratings. Term limits – possibly just two - would give members a final term in which they’d be free from concern for re-election. Also, in such a chamber party influence would be much diminished. Without the position of the executive there’d be no distorting influence of potential promotion to ministerial office for members in the governing parties. Furthermore, as the governing coalition wouldn’t need a majority there’d be less pressure for TDs to vote with the gov. or opposition – and less polarised brinkmanship as a result. Indeed, would there be a need for a party whip?

Most TDs are made overly sensitive to opinion polls and press coverage due to their party’s fortunes. Constituents might be satisfied with the individual representing them but tend to vote along party lines. As a result, individual performance often matters little. Remove the whip and you greatly diminish party - and so fickle voter - influence. Instead, you have a chamber consisting less of party lackeys and more of individual legislators. It would follow that senators would have much more independence to vote solely on the merits of proposed laws and on how they would affect their particular province.

Sparks

Many upper chambers in other countries may well be talking shops but surely that doesn’t mean such a state of affairs is beneficial.

The problem is not the nature of the Senate (hell, at least they have Norris), but the nature of the Dail, where debate is a distant memory. As the Greens pointed out after the election, all that takes place outside of the ten minutes of the incredibly restricted Leader's Questions, is a long sequence of prepared speeches, often delivered to a Dail occupied by six or seven people, including janitors... :rolleyes:

What’s required is a system that’s democratic but avoids as much as is possible the fickle and myopic nature of the voting public. Hence, long terms and possibly term limits.

The problem with long terms is the only term long enough for real long-term planning is that of "taoiseach for life". As to the slur you just cast on the voting public, remember that the majority of them don't think their vote carries much weight. Which is as much a flaw of the education system as it is of the political system.

What is actually required however, is a different form of government - namely direct democracy. Removing the power of high-level policy decisions from the hands of the current bunch of right-wing myopes and putting it in the hands of the populus would be about the best single step anyone could take for improving our political system.

sceptre

Originally posted by M. Ferguson
Is this quota reselected every time the position of Taoiseach changes or just after a GE? For that matter, are senate term lengths fixed or tied to Dail terms?

First Taoiseach after every general election gets to select his 11 nominees. They stay in power (hehe, look, I just made a joke) until the next general election. Vacancies in the nominations (death etc) are filled by whoever is Taoiseach at the time. Senate term lengths are tied to Dail term lengths - a Senate election has to be held not more than 90 days after a Dail election.

Victor

Originally posted by sceptre
Vacancies in the nominations (death etc) are filled by whoever is Taoiseach at the time.

I thought by-elections were done from the Dáil & Seanad?

M. Ferguson

Hi Sparks

The problem is not the nature of the Senate (hell, at least they have Norris), but the nature of the Dail, where debate is a distant memory.

I believe that there is a problem with the Sinead: it hasn't the power or autonomy to effectively scrutinise legislation. Think how much more useful to Ireland’s political process gifted senators would be if they had some real muscle to force the government to draft more thoughtful - as opposed to headline grabbing - bills. You highlight failings of the Dail; fair enough, but why reform only it? Wouldn’t governance be improved markedly more if both houses were reformed – the Sinead and the Dail?

The problem with long terms is the only term long enough for real long-term planning is that of "taoiseach for life".

I don’t think that’s the case. Much can be planned for and achieved over one or two sizeable terms. Think of how much reform both Clement Atlee and Margaret Thatcher achieved over a relatively short period in office compared to a whole life span. Many would disagree with what they did, but the results had a considerably lengthy affect – indeed, we’re still living with some of the consequences today (in the UK at least).

As to the slur you just cast on the voting public, remember that the majority of them don't think their vote carries much weight.

It wasn’t intended as a slur, Sparks. I did say, ‘without the restraining influence of democracy would you want them to?’, in reference to the lack of control voters have over the senate. A key tenet of my argument for Sinead reform was a chamber elected by the people – hardly a rebuke to the voting public! As for the fickle and myopic nature of the voting public, such a mindset does unfortunately exist. I’m a voter myself and I have neither the time nor the expertise to fully examine every issue that arises for debate during a term. This is the case for most people and as a result we – the voting public – frequently make ill-informed snap judgements on what a government should do next. Opinion polls, vox pops, etc. bare this out. This is why we elect representatives to govern on our behalf: hence, the name representative democracy. Unlike us, they have the time – not to mention the interest which many voters understandably lack – to dedicate themselves to thorough research on matters that effect the nation. The electorate can then make a judgement by weighing their performance over a whole term against criticism made by the opposition and what they'd propose to do differently. Voters can afford to dedicate some of their time to such a general election every so often, but not to the myriad of choices that must be made throughout a term. If that happened, the country would collapse (if we all stopped work to do so) or poor governance would prevail. As with everything, the current system has its faults - a minority of corrupt or lazy TDs for example - but its the least worst form of government.

Just look at the State of California for the disastrous consequences resulting from a gradual move away from representative democracy to the direct kind you propose over the past 30 years. Crucial issues are often neglected, essential decisions ignored. Governance has been increasingly highjacked by eye-catching advertisements in the media pedalled by wealthy individuals and lobby groups. Referenda and ballots are called on numerous occasions, allowing for no forward planning. This has diminished the concept of something resembling a programme for governance. Instead, running the state has become ad hoc and incoherent as the interests of the electorate wax and wane, changing from week to week depending on the latest press headlines. In the middle of all this, table bangers and single-issue campaign groups have gained a stranglehold over much that happens in Sacramento. Such a system could only ever function in a very small community – a tiny Pacific Island nation possibly. California is considered increasingly ungovernable and yet it’s still a long way from a complete system of direct democracy. Is this what you’re really proposing for Ireland in your last paragraph?

The alterations I recommended earlier in the thread were actually designed to do the reverse. To strengthen our system of representative democracy. A system that has been weakened over the last number of years with the increasing use of opinion polls throughout the term to determine policy on the hoof. And by a new approach to government where those in power feel the need to respond to every press headline and be seen to be doing something. Better, instead, to take a long term and cerebral approach, ignoring voter and press fickleness, being judged on a full terms performance – not on every minor development hyped by a media seeking to shift copy and increase ratings. Look at what rolling news did for coverage of the recent war!!

M. Ferguson

First Taoiseach after every general election gets to select his 11 nominees. They stay in power (hehe, look, I just made a joke) until the next general election. Vacancies in the nominations (death etc) are filled by whoever is Taoiseach at the time. Senate term lengths are tied to Dail term lengths - a Senate election has to be held not more than 90 days after a Dail election.

Thanks Sceptre. I fail to see why an upper chamber that contains no executive cannot have fixed, lengthy terms. As I attempted to expound earlier, this would give its members much more autonomy and a greater length of time to find their feet, really getting to grips with important issues. Surely the current system enables the Taosieach to use almost a fifth of the Sinead as a nursery for rising stars in his party. Maybe this is how much of the senate is used. Whereas, if it were given some degree of power and filled with those who’d fought a real election to sit there it might be seen as an end in itself. This would improve scrutiny as senators keen to make a go of it in their own chamber, as opposed to weighting for a vacancy in the Dail, would make for better legislators. Furthermore, as the example of Mary O’Rourke possibly demonstrates, the Sinead could also be exploited by the Taoiseach as a graveyard slot - one that offers an appealing new status - for under performing ministers. A similar piece of political chicanery was, until recently, employed for years at Westminster; need to shift a failing minister but fear their influence on the back benches – give them a peerage! Hardly conducive to achieving a more effective legislature.

Sparks

You highlight failings of the Dail; fair enough, but why reform only it?

Who said only??? But you do start with the biggest problem.

Think of how much reform Margaret Thatcher achieved over a relatively short period in office compared to a whole life span.

Well, I suppose "reform" is one word for it... but I can think of several others that are more appropriate, such as "damage".

This is why we elect representatives to govern on our behalf: hence, the name representative democracy. Unlike us, they have the time – not to mention the interest which many voters understandably lack – to dedicate themselves to thorough research on matters that effect the nation.

Wonderful theory.
Tell me, MF, what's the price of petrol at your local station? How long does it take to drive to work?
Point being, people know the details that matter to them and have opinions on them, pretty much by default. I'll trust that a lot more than I'll trust the assumed objectiveness of TDs, especially when some of them are not being exposed as being highly corrupt - hell lawlor is now set to make another small fortune from the sale of land in lucan for adamstown...
The thing is, in a direct democracy you still maintain an executive to monitor day-to-day running of the country. In effect, it's representative democracy most of the time, but the people have the legal mechanism to say "hang on there now a minute boyo - you're not doing <such-and-such> without asking us first!".

As with everything, the current system has its faults - a minority of corrupt or lazy TDs for example - but its the least worst form of government.

I'd say second-least worst myself.

Just look at the State of California for the disastrous consequences resulting from a gradual move away from representative democracy to the direct kind you propose over the past 30 years.

And just look at switzerland for a good example of direct democracy stretching back a hundred years. I wish bonkey would post in here, he's getting a first-hand view of this.
As to California...

Is this what you’re really proposing for Ireland in your last paragraph?

Well, seeing as how it works fine for switzerland with their 6 million people, I see little reason why it wouldn't work here with our 3 million people...

Better, instead, to take a long term and cerebral approach, ignoring voter and press fickleness, being judged on a full terms performance

That's a damn sight far away from "better". You're advocating that the electorate abdicate any and all control of the government for the entireity of a longer term than they have now.
That's a huge step backward. And a potentially highly dangerous one, as shown in the states by the actions of their administration, and here by the actions of ours, especially in matters like the FOI act.

M. Ferguson

Who said only???

It appeared that you clearly didn't think senate reform mattered when you posted the following, Sparks:

The problem is not the nature of the Senate (hell, at least they have Norris), but the nature of the Dail

I can only respond to what you write!

Sparks, maybe we should debate the respective merits of representative and direct democracy in a separate thread. There's most likely a lot to be said on the subject. Could we keep this thread for provincial government?


Back to the main topic. When an idea such as devolution is proposed one benefit people living in a very centralised nation probably fail to grasp is the almost holistic improvement it would make to the country. By this I mean the change in atmosphere or collective conscience such a development would most likely induce. By focusing on the details of its implementation – important though they are – this could be missed. If you look at the US or Australia, I would hazard a claim that the way in which people from different states relate to each other is healthier and better for their countries as a whole than any corresponding relationship in Ireland or the UK. To an extent, I touched on this earlier.

Western Australians don’t always agree with attitudes prevailing in the east of their continent. The same goes for Californians. Such attitudes, from time to time, may even percolate through to their distant capitals – Canberra and Washington, respectively. Policies can become popular in federal government that occasionally run counter to the health of far-flung parts of the countries they rule over. As would be the case anywhere, these differing outlooks can cause a frisson of tension. However, in federal nations like the aforementioned this uneasy environment is ameliorated by the degree of control states have over their own affairs.

With the adage good fences make good neighbours in mind, a federal nation can cope well with conflicting approaches to governance or views on what’s for the best that arise within all countries every so often.

George Bush is not an environmentalist, Californians believe strongly in environmental protection measures, however. No matter: as they have their own governor and congress the state can enact its own environmental legislation that may not currently be popular in Washington. So, the Golden State has placed laws pertaining to engine pollution on its statute books that the White House might never have contemplated or even disagrees with. There are many examples such as this in nations with strong regional governments. Their devolved structure allows for flexibility enabling states, provinces etc. to adapt policy to their particular needs.

Look at the alternative, to such flexibility, that exists in Ireland and, if no longer the UK, is still prevalent in England. As I outlined in previous posts, the peripheral regions in each - having virtually no autonomy whatsoever - are habitually forced to submit to policy dictats emanating from the capital. Whether transport or planning policy suitable for Dublin/Leinster is equally beneficial for Cork or Munster matters little. In a centralised state, what’s considered the best path to follow in the capital is generally imposed across the entire country. A policy straightjacket is in effect placed on the whole nation, based on the spurious logic that what’s applicable in Dublin and London must be just as relevant everywhere else.

Worse, omnipotent capitals often engineer legislation to maintain their own primacy. Hence, legislation denying British cities certain grant entitlements if they dare to challenge London’s stranglehold on finance by developing their own exchanges. When national governments do attempt to devise specific policies for other parts of the country, they often bare the hallmark of poor local knowledge of the region in question and are implemented in a hamfisted manner. On top of this, such plans often neglect the wishes of the people residing in the area they're applied to. Central authority's attitude to the provinces is often one of command and control.

The resentment many in the north of Britain and west of Ireland feel towards the regions containing their capitals is testament to the damaging effects – real and apparent – of this top down approach. A resentment provincial government would act as a pressure valve to release. If what’s best for Connacht differs from the most favourable path for Leinster, it doesn’t have to cause the current strain. Within reason, both can draft their own legislation.

Furthermore, a more flexible devolved structure would not only help diffuse tension between Dublin and the outer reaches of the country, but also introduce an element of healthy competition between the provinces.

With devolution allowing the west to govern the areas best placed under its control, better administration would hopefully ensue. This might well see a revival in the region’s economic and population prospects – the entire point of introducing devolution in the first place. Such a change in fortunes would likely see a new self-confidence emerge in the provinces.

This scenario developed in Australia, the US and Germany. Countries, whose wealth and population were once largely concentrated in one region, now benefiting from a much more even spread of people/prosperity. Areas in those countries formerly regarded as backwaters now lead the way in all sorts of matters. Queensland has become Australia’s leading tourism state; California has lit the touch paper on enough pan American trends – from film to microchips – to fill an encyclopaedia (quite an achievement for somewhere that was barely on Washington’s radar a century ago); and Bavaria – a state once mentioned by other Germans only in punch lines – now has an economy hailed as a model the nation must aspire to embrace if it intends to emerge from a long period of stagnation. Look too at Catalunia. Once a byword for failure in Madrid, it’s now a re-invigorated powerhouse of the Spanish economy – improving its performance as it accrued greater autonomy. Could similar comments be written about Munster or Connacht several decades hence? What with their tourism potential and natural gas discoveries, could they challenge the primacy of Leinster?

As Australian states push each other, competing to give their inhabitants the highest quality of life, new ideas emerge. If they’re seen to be successful in one state there often taken onboard and moulded to its rivals needs. This, I’m convinced, is one of the reasons an isolated, and in many ways insular, nation such as Australian remains at the cutting edge of ‘western’ society. Compare this to Ireland, another geographically isolated nation that’s often been accused of insularity.

These characteristics of Australia and Ireland are neither bad nor avoidable in themselves. Where they do seem to cause problems is in a very centralised, uniform state. Where there’s no internal dynamism or vibrancy that regional governance might ignite, policy debate often becomes stagnant – there’s nothing to provide an alternative or spark renewal. When Victoria finds itself in an economic malaise it can look to its peers for inspiration. When Leinster House runs up against the equivalent of an economic brick wall where else in the nation can it draw on for new ideas? Suffice to say if Dublin sneezes, the rest of Ireland catches a cold – there’s no where else in the country pursuing an alternative agenda. Instead, a monotonous and stifling uniformity holds sway.

Provincial governments with real power could sweep away the cobwebs and expose the fallacy of the presumption that Dublin knows best. It would have the potential to improve governance drastically; enabling regions to harness their strengths, encouraging policy competition and vibrancy across Ireland - not to mention a healthier atmosphere where no area has to feel disfranchised or helpless, spawning only bitterness and enmity.

Some people here may well favour a united European state. Ask yourself this: would you like such an entity to be completely centralised on Brussels with nation states having little more power than an Irish county council? Or, would you favour a devolved federal structure? If the latter’s your preference, just ask yourself why?